If we assume the existence of powerful and uncontrollable by civil administration intelligence agencies is a grave
threat to the democracy even in its most curtained form (legitimization of on one of two pre-selected and pre-approved by oligarchy
candidates) practiced on the USA, then the problem with former CIA and other intelligence operative who became politicians is the
level of connection to this former employee.
And please remember that CIA control large swats of major MSM and top journalists, which means that CIA brass is an
influential political force, kind of inner party described in famous Orwell novel 1984.
In the USA history two presidents were deposed by CIA (JFK and Nixon) and least three presidents were closely
connected to CIA
George Bush
Bill Clinton
Barak Obama.
Which create unease about influence of CIA on policies they pursued while in office.
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council
and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The
potential influx of military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn
from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will
hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or
intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling
a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored “star” recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who worked as Iraq director for the
National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national
intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone
warfare, “homeland defense” and cyber warfare
CIA Director Gina Haspel is hoping Trump loses his re-election bid so she can run out the clock on Russiagate document declassifications,
multiple intelligence community officials told The Federalist.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Gina Haspel is personally blocking the declassification and release of key Russiagate
documents in the hopes that President Donald Trump will lose his re-election bid, multiple senior U.S. officials told The Federalist.
The officials said Haspel, who served under former CIA Director John Brennan as the spy agency’s station chief in London in 2016
and 2017, is concerned that the declassification and release of documents detailing what the CIA was doing during the 2016 election
and the 2017 transition could embarrass the CIA and potentially even implicate Haspel herself.
“Haspel and [FBI Director Christopher] Wray both want Trump to lose, because it’s the only chance they have of keeping their jobs,”
one senior intelligence official told The Federalist. “They’re banking on Biden winning and keeping them where they are.”
The Federalist
first reported last week that Haspel had emerged as the primary roadblock to declassification of materials showing that the U.S.
intelligence community knew prior to the 2016 election that the allegations that Trump colluded with Russia were themselves the products
of Russian disinformation. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released
a declassified summary last week that disclosed that Russian intelligence officials were aware that former Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton had planned to smear Trump as a treasonous Russian asset to distract from the Clinton’s e-mail scandal. As
part of her operation, Clinton hired a foreign agent who was himself working for a sanctioned Russian oligarch to spread unverified
smears against Trump. One of the key sources of collusion allegations peddled by that foreign agent via the now-infamous Steele dossier
was suspected by FBI authorities of being a Russian spy.
“It’s far more important for Haspel to block any embarrassment of herself or her agency than to have full transparency and accountability,”
another senior intelligence official told The Federalist. “She’s just hoping she can get past the election so the documents will
never come out.”
“This is not a source protection issue, it’s an embarrassment issue,” the intelligence official added.
Officials also accused Haspel of repeatedly lying to the White House about the status of documents that are in the pipeline for
declassification and release. These officials said that Haspel has consistently provided baseless excuses for her failure to produce
certain documents, falsely claiming that she can’t physically locate documents, or that her agency doesn’t technically own them and
therefore cannot release them.
“Haspel has repeatedly lied to the president about the status of documents to be declassified,” one intelligence community
source said. “She will claim they don’t know where they are, or which agency technically owns them, and then we’ll find out she had
them the entire time and just didn’t want them to see the light of day.”
“The frustration with Haspel is reaching nuclear levels,” one official said, noting that White House and top U.S. intelligence
community officials have been taken aback by the ferocity of Haspel’s refusal to release documents.
The Federalist reached out to the CIA Public Affairs office for comment, but did not receive a response prior to publication.
Was it silly of us to think the Woke revolutionaires would get enough "bang for their buck" with trannie washrooms? Despite
winning every battle in the culture war, the Looney Left is never satisfied. What's scary is the latest front they've opened:
the Covid reformation of western society.
They won't have trouble finding 21st century Jews to de-humanize. Just label someone a Covid Denier or Anti Vaxxer and anything
will go!
A nice sentiment to think the Woke cancer can rot the CIA or US military. Afraid we've got bigger problems than that.
The CIA is not "testosterone saturated" . Quite the opposite. From its inception it has recruited an unusual number
of closeted homosexuals. This somewhat makes sense in that a gay who is in the closet, particularly the less LGBTQWERTY-friendly
culture of the 1950s that the CIA arose in, will already have experience being being less than forthright with their intentions.
Such individuals can also be blackmailed more easily should their employer find the need.
While things have changed in American society and being outed as gay is no longer the social death sentence that it used to
be, the gayness had already established itself as part of the internal culture of The Company and so it persists.
Do not equate a psychotic enthusiasm for harming others with testosterone. They are not a bunch of Rambos; more like a gang
of Norman Bates.
Testosterone level has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Psychiatry tried dosing male homosexuals with testosterone in
the 1950s and 1960s to make them "manly"; this served only to increase their (homosexual) sex drive and, not surprisingly, their
aggressiveness. Similarly, there's no correlation between where one lies on the Kinsey scale and one's testosterone leve .
Your description of the CIA's use of homosexual agents during that time period, however, is spot on. One might add that the
CIA (and other agencies; just consider the kind of character who ran the FBI at the time) may have valued the kind of talent for
duplicity and secrecy that the homosexually-inclined had to nurture from an early age.
"Generalized anxiety disorder" is what people who have a poor working relationship with reality often suffer from. The
anxiety arises from the divergence of what they believe the world to be from what they perceive about the world with their senses.
It is a permanent state of cognitive dissonance. The "woke" believe that the cure for this disorder is to create "safe
spaces" where exposure to elements of the real world that trigger the cognitive dissonance can be banned and cancelled. It
is an undeclared goal of the "woke" to extend these "safe space" reality exclusion zones to encompass the entire
planet.
Naturally, that goal is only attainable within the fantasy spaces of the "woke" reality exclusion zones themselves,
and those zones can only exist due to the pity and forbearance of the rest of the population. Currently the reality exclusion
zones only encompass educational establishments (primary and secondary schools; university campuses), some government agencies,
and some non-industrial workplaces (mass media, marketing, other strictly white collar enterprises).
Remember the "Havana Syndrome" , where CIA spooks under diplomatic cover at various US embassies, but mainly the one
in Cuba, developed psychogenic illnesses because they were convinced that they were being zapped by Soviet mind rays? This is
the result of taking individuals who already suffer from emotional and psychological damage like the cisgender millennial in the
linked CIA advertisement and placing them in postings where they are absolutely convinced that they are completely surrounded
by hostile enemies. Their delusion and paranoia feed off each other. Then, for the first time they hear crickets unlike anything
they ever experienced in their gated, manicured, bug-sprayed northern Virginia wealthy suburbs and their already fractured mind
shatters the rest of the way.
When you recall that the CIA is the "Mighty Wurlitzer" ; the conductor of the orchestra of mass media narratives, it
becomes clear why outfits like the New York Langley Times, the Washington Bezos Post, the
C IA N ews N etwork and such have been going off the rails with their absurd narratives these last several years.
Yeah, that has to be one of the most hare brained Psyop fails ever. The US is a world leader alright, in mental retardation
and lack of self awareness.
Identity politics and wokeness meets imperialism. Makes you wonder how much longer they can unironically continue calling themselves
'intelligence' agencies.
Consistent with other brilliant 'Born in the USA', ideologically spawned own goals, like bank deregulation, privatising the
military, legalising bribes in politics, incentivising every idiot to own a gun, de-industrialising and outsourcing production
in China, and the inevitable coup de grace in waiting, leveraging the Dollar's status as reserve currency to impose sanctions...
because... exceptionalism and indispensability are just eternal, universally accepted virtues apparently.
If learning from mistakes makes us wiser, one can expect more than a few Buddhas of sorts to emerge from the US in a generation
or 3. Would not want to be there in the time between though, it's bound to be a rough ride.
Contrary to what recent history might suggest, the CIA was founded by, and has always served as the upper-middle-class/bourgeois
center-left bastion within the USG. During the Cold War, it was probably the main employer of Yale graduates, specially from the
Literature bachelor. A running joke during the Cold War was that the CIA was the the world's highest concentration of failed writers.
The reason for that is very simple: its predecessor - the OSS - organically evolved during WWII as the repository for the sons
of the Northeastern elite who wanted to experience the thrills of war without incurring the risk of death. By the time WWII ended,
the OSS was essentially an Ivy League fraternity.
I worked there 10 fiscal years as a computer-systems contractor, 20 years ago. Interacted with a lot of Government types. Seemed
to me a huge bureaucracy, then, drowning in paperwork. Surprised if the whole place ever got anything done.
One oddity: people that went overseas, called DO then, absolutely mission critical, who often used initials for last names
(worked with a "Steven P." once), got shafted for promotions when abroad: out of sight, out of mind. Often paired in offices back
here, below the grade required for individual offices. Reputed to live high on the hog when away, but not back home.
@Anatoly
Karlin ps would rather have more influence in governing than less, but they aren't
particularly troubled by dem victory (principled defeat forms a big part of their rhetoric
and the basis of many rep careers). Both the senior and junior members of the ruling class
would truly like to see Trump gone, the faction that Trump represents is a very small
minority in American government, without much institutional influence. And in this election
in particular they made out like bandits, flipped a lot of seats to their side, and got rid
of the primary opponent of principled cuckservatism, win-win! Seems to me when the defense
and the prosecution both want the same thing, arguments in favor of a "fair" process should
be viewed with extreme suspicion.
"... It is almost as if the Deep State vampire squid would prefer to bring the Republic that threatens it to 3rd world status in order to protect the oligarchy. ..."
"... Cheating has always happened in elections, by both sides. 2016 was unprecedented in the use of the intelligence agencies to thwart the Constitution. This election cycle the MSM has shown itself for what it is with it's large scale censorship and blackouts - totalitarian. Cheating has always happened in elections but this 2020 election cycle the Democrats will take cheating to another level - to the STRATOSPHERE. ..."
It is almost as if the Deep State vampire squid would prefer to bring the Republic
that threatens it to 3rd world status in order to protect the oligarchy.
Trump is going to win it. They only question is by how much.
The cities are not boarding up because they expect Trump to lose. They're boarding up
because the left will not accept a Trump win under ANY circumstance.
Hillary Clinton has urged Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden to "not concede under
any circumstances," in November's presidential election, as she believes the results are
"going to drag out," because of mail-in voting.
Voting in the U.S. is manipulated at all levels. Fortunately the results probably don't
matter due to the financial stranglehold on politics so, except for the those employed by the
political candidates, it isn't worth losing sleep over. But if there was a functional
government in place then it would be a big deal.
The truth is that the facade of the Democrats is falling while the Republican brand has
not changed very much in a long time. Democratic support is an all time low and it is getting
harder and harder to spin that brand to a society which is not stupid enough to believe
everything anymore, especially in the face of two consecutive Presidential elections rife
with internal DNC corruption.
The donors really just want the electorate divided, so any real vote manipulation is
inconsequential in the scheme of things if all policy trends in the direction of finance and
that sort of thing.
I predict you will see more scandal and spectacle over elections on television and every
issue will have its emotional appeal magnified to try and bolster support for a feckless
Left, while policy continues to feel like it was written by Count Dracula. Ultimately,
violence will be stoked by news media in this subtle way until the "violent left" is used as
an excuse to enact law and order policies aimed at shutting down protests of all types.
In 2016 the establishment knew their pick was going to win by a landslide. They had
absolute certainty, so why bother with the extra work of cooking the tallies? After all, how
could many of the American people possibly vote for the joke candidate who was reveling in
playing the part of the Great Orange Ogre? It was inconceivable.
I am sure the establishment does have its contingency plans activated this time, but
things are a little different now. Real discussions of election fraud (as opposed to voter
fraud) were far outside the Overton Window back in 2016. Now the risk has been raised
by the establishment itself, validating the possibility of widespread election tampering and
making it part of the national discourse. Suspicions and evidence of tampering will be
impossible to dismiss as "conspiracy theory" , so the establishment's freedom of
action has been significantly constrained by their own accusations against Trump. As a
consequence, they may be hesitant to doctor the vote counts as much as they would like.
70 He has been under their control from the chocolate cake surprise murder of that 24 year
old Syrian radar
tech,no going back once you become a member of the war criminals club.
Wait, so Trump is the one who is sending armed poll watchers out to the states, stopping the
post office mailings, already suing in court for ballots to be tossed out, actively telling
supporters that any votes not counted by 8 pm tonight are invalid, telling his followers that
Democrats are such "socialists and communists" that they are enemies of the state, and he is
the one talking about having all his political opponents (and some of his own administration)
arrested right after the election, but somehow it is the spineless Democrats who allow all
this shit to go on without much complaint that are the ones trying to instigate a color
revolution in the US.
Everyone is completely gonzo, inside out and upside down. And now even MoA.
Come on, fess up, you've been chanting that for the last four years. Don't lie and say it
ain't so.
The Dims have been gonzo since they turned on their TVs on the morning of November 9, 2016
to see how much Clinton had won by. They lost their minds then and have not yet found them
again.
It's very one sided to focus on Biden team's color revolution while denying Trump's. Both of
them are evident. But, since media attention on Trump's had been overwhelming and quite muted
on Biden's, let's count this as a venial sin...
Where this post is right is that it is the after struggle that matters. How far it goes and
the damage it inflict on US' standing and power will reverberate everywhere.
In the end someone (not necessarily Trump or Biden) will win and will have to patch up
this country on the rubble of the coming disaster. The question of how to reunite the USA
after that, on what basis, for what purpose. For instance, during the election season, a lot
of commentators argued that opposition to China was the only common ground in foreign
policy.
China's patience at political, economic and tech attacks by the US is running to its end. The
next "leader of the free world" will most likely have a very narrow window of opportunity to
bring the relationship back to normalcy before China retaliates.
Democrats are so cute. First you had your divisive resistance in 2016, but the divisiveness
wasn't your fault. Then you moved on to Russia, Russia, Russia. I get the Clinton machine and
bipartisan cronies had unfinished business in the raping of post Soviet Russia. Damn that
Putin for demanding legitimate tax payment. I always thought you guys loved taxing the rich.
Guess not, but the bigger question are you getting any kickback from the global predatory
crony system? Probably not. Now it is Trump won't leave. He will. Trump will suppress the
vote. No he wants a big turnout. Here in PA our dear AG Josh Shapiro has said a couple days
ago that Biden has the early votes to win the state. Kinda sounds like Josh plans on
suppressing election day voting...no? Why can't you just win the vote with your positions?
Why can't you accept when people don't like your positions? More importantly when did you
decide to hate working class people, especially the white ones? They use to be your base.
Everyone please stay safe from the deep state's planned insanity.
Posted by: William Gruff | Nov 3 2020 21:02 utc | 71
High time to send observers, otherwise the international community shall not recognize the
legitimacy of the results.... A US Guaidó is needed, then the MSM can tell the world
that over fifty countries call him president,
Gruff@71: The problem is that you have a perfect situation: undercover services and a secret
activity with no auditing possible in many cases. I'm sure that the intelligence services
understand full well what the margin of error is, and know how to work within it in the
places where it can tip the balance.
Heck, they might even be the secret owners of many of these voting machine
manufacturers.
In addition, we know that some intelligence services went for Hillary in 2016–former
CIA Director Mike Morrell helped kick off RussiaGate with an op-Ed in 2016. CIA Director John
Brennan led the interagency charge against Trump's unproven collusion. Now Trump has vowed to
make a lot of heads roll if he wins.
Lots of motivation and lots of secret tools, along with a perfect opportunity...
They don't have any positions! They are the Democratic Party, therefore entitled to rule
America forever. What support they have is from the Looney Left who, spoiled by winning every
issue in the culture war, will throw a temper tantrum any time they don't get their way.
Because they get there way practically all the time, they freak out if you just look at them
the wrong way. No wonder we've had a 4 year meltdown since Trump appeared on the scene. And
they'll double down on their hissy fit as we begin another 4 years.
Funny, I used to be left leaning. Certainly could find common ground with Liberals on many
issues. Now all you get from the activists and the left wing media is a monotonous virtual
signal.
Cheating has always happened in elections, by both sides. 2016 was unprecedented in
the use of the intelligence agencies to thwart the Constitution. This election cycle the MSM
has shown itself for what it is with it's large scale censorship and blackouts -
totalitarian. Cheating has always happened in elections but this 2020 election cycle the
Democrats will take cheating to another level - to the STRATOSPHERE.
Trump and his people saw it coming and so made attempts to thwart the NEW BEFORE SEEN
OUTRAGEOUSLY MASSIVE cheating by Democrats and their allies.
Some see Trump's efforts as "distorting the electoral process" - what a laugh!!
Is this 50 former Intel officials or 50 former national security parasites? Real Intel
officials should keep quite after retirement. National security parasites go to politics and
lobbying. One telling sign that a particular parson is a "national security parasite" is his
desire to play "Russian card"
From comments: "Did the 50 former intelligence officials find the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction yet?"
Hours before Politico
reported the existence of a letter signed by '50 former senior intelligence officials' who say
the Hunter Biden laptop scandal "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information
operation" - providing "no new evidence," while they remain "deeply suspicious that the Russian
government played a significant role in this case," Tucker Carlson obliterated their (literal)
conspiracy theory .
According to the Fox News host, he's seen 'nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop ,' adding " No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information ."
" This is not a Russian hoax. We are not speculating ."
TUCKER: "This afternoon, we received nonpublic information that proves it was Hunter's
laptop. No one but Hunter could've known about or replicated this information. This is not a
Russian hoax. We are not speculating." pic.twitter.com/cl2ktdmdVc
Meanwhile, the Delaware computer repair shop owner who believes Hunter dropped off three
MacBook Pros for data recovery has a signed work order bearing Hunter's signature . When
compared to the signature on a document in his paternity suit, while one looks more formal than
the other, they are a match.
Going back to the '50 former senior intelligence officials' and their latest Russia
fixation, one has to wonder - do they think Putin was able to compromise Biden's
former business associate , Bevan Cooney, who gave investigative journalist Peter Schweizer
his gmail password - revealing that Hunter and his partners were engaged in an
influence-peddling operation for rich Chinese who wanted access to the Obama
administration?
Did Putin further hack Joe Biden in 2011 to make him take a meeting with a Chinese
delegation with ties to the CCP - arranged by Hunter's group, two years they secured a massive
investment of Chinese money?
The implications boggle the mind.
Here's the clarifying sentences from the '50 former senior intelligence officials' that
exposes the utter farce of it all:
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence , they said their national
security experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a
significant role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the
Kremlin's hand at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
"Hunter Biden's laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation campaign."
And then there's the fact that no one from the Biden campaign has yet to deny any of the
'facts' in the emails. lay_arrow jin187 , 2 hours ago
Totally ridiculous. This ******** beating around the bush for both sides pisses me off.
Dump all the laptop contents on Wikileaks if it's real. Let the people sort it out. If you
say it's not real, prove it. If Biden wants me to believe it's not real, then stand behind a
podium, and say clear as day into a pile of cameras that's it's all a forgery, and that
you've done nothing wrong.
Instead we have Giuliani swearing he has a smoking gun, but as far as I can tell he's just
pointing his finger underneath his shirt. Biden on the other hand, keep using weasel words to
imply it's fake, but never denies it outright. It's almost like he's trying to hedge his bet
that no one will manage to prove it's real before he gets into office, and makes it
disappear.
Roacheforque , 7 hours ago
To play the "Russian Card" yet again should be beyond embarrassing. An insult to the
intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80. And so it's harmful to the left wingnut
derangeables. Like Assad's chemical weapons and Saddam's WMDs, it is now code for pure
********. Not even code, just more like a signal.
A signal that say's "guilty as charged - we got nothin' but lies and BS over here".
East Indian , 4 hours ago
An insult to the intelligence of anyone with an IQ over 80.
They know their supporters wont find this insulting.
Kayman , 4 hours ago
@vulvishka.
538 ? North Korea has better propaganda.
Don't forget to go all in, like you did with Hillary.
Antedeluvian , 2 hours ago
Unfortunately, some very bright people are sucked into the conspiracy theory. I know one.
Very bright lawyer. She says, "I still think there is substantive evidence of Russian
collusion." I can point to a sky criss-crossed with chemtrails (when you see these
"contrails" crossing at the same altitude, this is one sure clue these are not from regular
passenger jet traffic) and she refuses to look up. She KNOWS I am an idiot (a PhD scientist
idiot at that) because I get news and analysis on the web from sites that just want to sell
me tee shirts and coffee mugs (well, she is partly right there!) whereas she gets her news
from MSNBC, a venerable and trustworthy news source.
4DegreesOfSeparation , 6 hours ago
More Than 50 Former Intel Officials Say Hunter Biden Smear Smells Like Russia
"If we are right," the group wrote in a letter, "this is Russia trying to influence how
Americans vote."
DescendantofthePatriots , 7 hours ago
That ****, James Clapper, signed his name at the top of this list.
Known liar, saboteur, and sneak.
The cognitive dissonance in our country is astounding. The fact that they would take these
people's opinion over hard fact is astounding.
No wonder why we're sliding down the steep, slippery slope.
strych10 , 8 hours ago
So... let me get this straight.
50, that's 10 times five, fifty former intelligence officials are going with a convoluted
narrative about a ludicrously complicated Russian Intelligence disinformation campaign
involving planted laptops and at least half a dozen patsies when the two words "crack
cocaine" explain the entire thing?
I'm not sure what's more terrifying; That these people think everyone else is dumb enough
to believe this or that they're actually retired intelligence officials
.
Who the actual **** is running this ****show? The bastard child of Barney Fife and
Inspector Clouseau?
Seriously, "Pink Panther Disinformation Operation" is more believable at this point.
Someone Else , 9 hours ago
This needs to get out, because a FAVORITE method of the Deep State, Democrats and the
media (but I repeat myself) is to parade some sort of a stupid letter with a bunch of
signature hoping to look impressive but that really don't mean a damn thing.
Notre Dame graduates against the Supreme Court nominee, Intelligence agents alleging
collusion, former State Department operatives against Trump. Its grandstanding that has been
overdone.
moneybots , 8 hours ago
The letter by 50 former intelligence officials is itself, disinformation.
otschelnik , 8 hours ago
Remember when Weiner's attorney turned over Huma's home laptop to SDNY/FBI with all of
Shillary's emails, and the FBI sat on it for a month and then Comey deep sixed them without
even looking at them?
So now the FBI subpeona'd Hunter's laptop and burried it? Deja vu all over again.
enough of this , 8 hours ago
The FBI and DOJ constantly hide behind self-serving excuses to refuse the release of
documents and, when forced to do so, they release heavily redacted files. They offer up the
usual pretexts to fend off public disclosure such as: the information you seek cannot be
disclosed because it involves an ongoing investigation, or the information you seek involves
national security, or our methods and sources will be jeopardized if the information you seek
is divulged to the public. But it seems the ones who would be most harmed by public
disclosure are the corrupt FBI and DOJ officials themselves
Cobra Commander , 7 hours ago
A short 4 years ago the FBI and CIA were all concerned about "Kompromat" the Ruskies might
have on Candidate Trump; concerned enough to spy on his campaign and open a
counter-intelligence operation.
There are troves of Kompromat material, actual emails and video, on Joe, Hunter, and the
whole Biden family; not made-up DNC-funded dossiers claiming a Russian consulate in
Miami.
Now when it's Candidate Biden, everyone be all like, "Meh."
Cobra!
The Fonz...before shark jump , 5 hours ago
we gotta listen to the 50 former intelligence agents...you know the ones that had lone
superpower status in the early 90s and then pissed it all away with 9/11 and infinity wars in
middle east hahahahah ok buddy lol... histories D students....
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 7 hours ago
Signed by James Clapper and John Brennan;
You mean, the 2 Bozos who under the threat of perjury said there was NO evidence of
Russian Collusion and the Trump campaign................. and 2 hours later called Trump
'Putin's puppet' on CNN.............
The Awan Brothers aided former DNC chief Debbie Wasserman Schultz in making threatening voice modulated phone calls to
attorneys suing the DNC for election fraud.
Lt. Colonel Tony Schaffer told
Fox
News
that Schultz ordered the Awan Brothers to scare off the lawyers due to the threat they pose in exposing widespread
election fraud committed by the Democratic Party in 2016.
Disobedientmedia.com
reports: If substantiated, the claims may have significance for the DNC fraud lawsuit proceedings,
and add to the growing controversy surrounding the recent arrest of Imran Awan on bank fraud charges.
Jared Beck, and attorney litigating the DNC Fraud Lawsuit noted
on Twitter
:
Posted by: William Gruff | Aug 11 2020 16:57 utc | 92
Almost certainly, at least at one time, the scholarship was meant to come first.
The Rhodes Scholars provide a talent pool for the single organisation that oversees the CIA,
Mossad and British Intelligence:
A clumsy grab from James Corbett's excellent documentary `The WW1 Conspiracy` https://www.corbettreport.com/wwi/
provides the entrance to a rabbit hole ...
Gerry Docherty, WWI scholar and co-author of Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the
First World War.
DOCHERTY: Rhodes had the money and he had the contacts. He was a great Rothschild man
and his mining wealth was literally uncountable. He wanted to associate himself with Oxford
because Oxford gave him the kudos of the university of knowledge, of that kind of
power.
And in fact that was centered in a very secretive place called "All Souls College."
Still you'll find many references to All Souls College and "people behind the curtain" and
such phrases [as] "power behind thrones." Rhodes was centrally important in actually
putting money up in order to begin to gather together like-minded people of great
influence.
Rhodes was not shy about his ambitions, and his intentions to form such a group were
known to many. Throughout his short life, Rhodes discussed his intentions openly with many
of his associates, who, unsurprisingly, happened to be among the most influential figures
in British society at that time.
More remarkably, this secret society -- which was to wield its power behind the throne
-- was not a secret at all. The New York Times even published an article discussing the
founding of the group in the April 9, 1902, edition of the paper, shortly after Rhodes'
death.
The article, headlined "Mr. Rhodes's Ideal of Anglo-Saxon Greatness" and carrying the
remarkable sub-head "He Believed a Wealthy Secret Society Should Work to Secure the World's
Peace and a British-American Federation," summarized this sensational plan by noting that
Rhodes' "idea for the development of the English-speaking race was the foundation of 'a
society copied, as to organization, from the Jesuits.'" Noting that his vision involved
uniting "the United States Assembly and our House of Commons to achieve 'the peace of the
world,'" the article quotes Rhodes as saying: "The only thing feasible to carry out this
idea is a secret society gradually absorbing the wealth of the world."
@William Gruff #93
Perhaps you can highlight how a youthful Bill Clinton and/or Kris Kristofferson are prime
future material for the intel agencies.
In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy League universities.
Or is this all a ploy for the CIA to control country music?
It is far more likely that Bill was a Rhodes scholar because of him having clerked for
Fulbright- the US Senator who later created the Fulbright scholarships.
In any case, the burden of proof is always on the person making the extreme; strong
statement.
As for Kristofferson: his father was a US Air Force major general.
Seems much more a tool of England building influence with existing and possible future
Americans than any crystal ball intel agency recruitment.
Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
"... The Mellon Foundation's move towards social justice isn't surprising, but it is political, whatever Alexander may say, in its narrow conception of "the world of man," as Stegner put it, and its decision to support works for their utility alone is based on the misconception that art's primary function is to "change" people. People may change after reading certain works, and, as Seneca said, the arts may "prepare the soul for the reception of virtue," but they cannot make people virtuous -- and even that preparatory work is of secondary value. ..."
"... In other news: A group of writers published an open letter in Harper's condemning our cancel culture and calling for more openness to the "free exchange of information and ideas." It was immediately condemned as "fatuous, self-important drivel." ..."
How long will it be before praising a work of art for its aesthetic excellence alone is
considered a revolutionary act? Nearly every literary prize now takes into consideration the
race and politics of authors when naming shortlists and winners. When they don't, they get into
trouble. More and more, what matters when it comes to literature today is the "utility" of a
work -- defined, of course, in a very narrow way -- not its excellence, as if the utility of a
work of art isn't found precisely in its excellence.
This is how Wallace Stegner put it in "One
Way to Spell Man": "It would be idiotic to defend the arts for pseudoscientific or pragmatic
reasons, for any 'usefullness' as 'communication' or 'therapy' or anything else that they may
incidentally have. They are indispensable precisely because they are expressions of truth, a
way of understanding, at the deepest level, the world of man."
The poet Elizabeth Alexander should read more Stegner. It was announced last week that the Mellon Foundation, of which Alexander
is president, would only support projects that advance social justice:
"An increased focus on just communities comes at a moment in which a national spotlight is
shining on widespread -- and longstanding -- social and racial injustice. The new mission notes
that the Foundation's focus will be on building 'just communities enriched by meaning and
empowered by critical thinking where ideas and imagination can thrive' and animated by a belief
that 'the arts and humanities are where we express our complex humanity.'"
Alexander said in an interview that
there wouldn't be "a penny that is going out the door that is not contributing to a more fair,
more just, more beautiful society." How they are going to decide which projects contribute in
this way is unclear. When asked if the focus on social justice is politicizing the largest
supporter of arts and humanities in America, Alexander said that social justice "isn't political any more than
social injustice is political." So, when Mellon gave The Justice Collaboratory at Yale (you see
how supporting "underrepresented" artists works) a $5.25 million grant for its Million Book Project, it wasn't
making a political statement regarding the "cruel and unjust reality of the American penal
system" or the "systemic inequities in our conception and application of the law" (my
emphasis). It was just supporting an organization committed to truth. Alexander told Len Gutkin at The Chronicle of Higher
Education : "It is mischaracterizing it to say that there is something inherently political
about trying to create a more fair and just society. And that there is not something equally
political about denying resources or denying the humanity or denying the possibility of so many
people." I am sure she really believes this, which in itself could be taken as proof that the
arts don't expand one's capacity for seeing other points of view or "critical thinking."
The Mellon Foundation's move towards social justice isn't surprising, but it is political,
whatever Alexander may say, in its narrow conception of "the world of man," as Stegner put it,
and its decision to support works for their utility alone is based on the misconception that
art's primary function is to "change" people. People may change after reading certain works,
and, as Seneca said, the arts may "prepare the soul for the reception of virtue," but
they cannot make people virtuous -- and even that preparatory work is of secondary value.
In other news: A group of writers published
an open letter in Harper's condemning our cancel culture and calling for more
openness to the "free exchange of information and ideas." It was immediately condemned as "fatuous, self-important drivel."
... ... ...
Receive Prufrock in your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribehere.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Micah Mattix is the literary editor of The American Conservative and an associate
professor of English at Regent University. His work has appeared in The Wall Street
Journal , National Review , The Weekly Standard , Pleiades , The
Washington Times , and many other publications. His latest book is The Soul Is a
Stranger in this World: Essays on Poets and Poetry (Cascade). Follow him on Twitter .
"... The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have clearly diminished over time. ..."
"... The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not" be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power. ..."
"... Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country, shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare. ..."
How do the Democrats benefit from the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests?
While the protests are being used to paint Trump as a race-bating white supremacist, that is
not their primary objective. The main goal is to suppress and demonize Trump's political base
which is comprised of mainly white working class people who have been adversely impacted by the
Democrats disastrous free trade and immigration policies. These are the people– liberal
and conservative– who voted for Trump in 2016 after abandoning all hope that the
Democrats would amend their platform and throw a lifeline to workers who are now struggling to
make ends meet in America's de-industrialized heartland.
The protests are largely a diversion aimed at shifting the public's attention to a
racialized narrative that obfuscates the widening inequality chasm (created by the Democrats
biggest donors, the Giant Corporations and Wall Street) to historic antagonisms that have
clearly diminished over time. (Racism ain't what it used to be.)
The Democrats are resolved to set the agenda by deciding what issues "will and will not"
be covered over the course of the campaign. And– since race is an issue on which they
feel they can energize their base by propping-up outdated stereotypes of conservatives as
ignorant bigots incapable of rational thought– the Dems are using their media clout to
make race the main topic of debate. In short, the Democrats have settled on a strategy for
quashing the emerging populist revolt that swept Trump into the White House in 2016 and
derailed Hillary's ambitious grab for presidential power.
The plan, however, does have its shortcomings, for example, Democrats have offered nearly
blanket support for protests that have inflicted massive damage on cities and towns across the
country. In the eyes of many Americans, the Dems support looks like a tacit endorsement of the
arson, looting and violence that has taken place under the banner of "racial justice". The Dems
have not seriously addressed this matter, choosing instead to let the media minimize the issue
by simply scrubbing the destruction from their coverage. This "sweep it under the rug" strategy
appears to be working as the majority of people surveyed believe that the protests were "mostly
peaceful", which is a term that's designed to downplay the effects of the most ferocious
rioting since the 1970s.
Let's be clear, the Democrats do not support Black Lives Matter nor have they made any
attempt to insert their demands into their list of police reforms. BLM merely fits into the
Dems overall campaign strategy which is to use race to deflect attention from the gross
imbalance of wealth that is the unavoidable consequence of the Dems neoliberal policies
including outsourcing, off-shoring, de-industrialization, free trade and trickle down
economics. These policies were aggressively promoted by both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama as
they will be by Joe Biden if he is elected. They are the policies that have gutted the country,
shrunk the middle class, and transformed the American dream into a dystopian nightmare.
They are also the policies that have given rise to, what the pundits call, "right wing
populism" which refers to the growing number of marginalized working people who despise
Washington and career politicians, feel anxious about falling wages and dramatic demographic
changes, and resent the prevailing liberal culture that scorns their religion and patriotism.
This is Trump's mainly-white base, the working people the Democrats threw under the bus 30
years ago and now want to annihilate completely by deepening political polarization, fueling
social unrest, pitting one group against another, and viciously vilifying them in the media as
ignorant racists whose traditions, culture, customs and even history must be obliterated to
make room for the new diversity world order. Trump touched on this theme in a speech he
delivered in Tulsa. He said:
"Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes,
erase our values and indoctrinate our children. Angry mobs are trying to tear down statues of
our founders, deface our most sacred memorials and unleash a wave of violent crime in our
cities."
Author Charles Burris expanded on this topic in an article
at Lew Rockwell titled America's Monumental Existential Problem:
"The wave of statue-toppling spreading across the Western world from the United States is
not an aesthetic act, but a political one, the disfigured monuments in bronze and stone
standing for the repudiation of an entire civilization. No longer limiting their rage to
slave-owners, American mobs are pulling down and disfiguring statues of abolitionists,
writers and saints in an act of revolt against the country's European founding, now
re-imagined as the nation's original sin, a moral and symbolic shift with which we Europeans
will soon be forced to reckon."
The statue-toppling epidemic is vastly more disturbing that the the looting or arson, mainly
because it reveals a ideological intensity aimed at symbols of state power. By tearing down the
images of the men who created or contributed to our collective history, the vandals are
challenging the legitimacy of the nation itself as well as its founding "enlightenment"
principles. This is the nihilism of extremists whose only objective is destruction. It suggests
that the Democrats might have aspirations that far exceed a mere presidential victory. Perhaps
the protests and riots will be used to justify more sweeping changes, a major reset during
which traditional laws and rules are indefinitely suspended until the crisis passes and order
can be restored. Is that at all conceivable or should we dismiss these extraordinary events as
merely young people "letting off a little steam"?
Here's how General Michael Flynn summed up what's going on on in a recent article:
"There is now a small group of passionate people working hard to destroy our American way
of life. Treason and treachery are rampant and our rule of law and those law enforcement
professionals are under the gun more than at any time in our nation's history I believe the
attacks being presented to us today are part of a well-orchestrated and well-funded effort
that uses racism as its sword to aggravate our battlefield dispositions. This weapon is used
to leverage and legitimize violence and crime, not to seek or serve the truth .The dark
forces' weapons formed against us serve one purpose: to promote radical social change through
power and control."
I agree. The toppling of statues, the rioting, the looting, the arson and, yes, the
relentless attacks on Trump from the day he took office, to Russiagate, to the impeachment, to
the insane claims about Russian "bounties", to the manipulation of science and data to trigger
a planned demolition of the US economy hastening a vast restructuring to the labor force and
the imposition of authoritarian rule; all of these are all cut from the same fabric, a tapestry
of lies and deception concocted by the DNC, the Intel agencies, the elite media, and their
behind-the-scenes paymasters. Now they have released their corporate-funded militia on the
country to wreak havoc and spread terror among the population. Meanwhile, the New York Times
and others continue to generate claims they know to be false in order to confuse the public
even while the people are still shaking off months of disorienting quarantine and feelings of
trepidation brought on by 3 weeks of nonstop social unrest and fractious racial conflict.
Bottom line: Neither the Democrats nor their allies at the Intel agencies and media have ever
accepted the "peaceful transition of power". They reject the 2016 election results, they reject
Donald Trump as the duly elected president of the United States, and they reject the
representative American system of government "by the people."
So let's get down to the nitty-gritty: Which political party is pursuing a radical-activist
strategy that has set our cities ablaze and reduced Capitol Hill to a sprawling warzone? Which
party pursued a 3 year-long investigation that was aimed at removing the president using a
dossier that they knew was false (Opposition research), claiming emails were hacked from DNC
computers when the cyber-security company that did the investigation said there was no proof of
"exfiltration"? (In other words, there was no hack and the Dems knew it since 2017) Which party
allied itself with senior-level officials at the FBI, CIA, NSA and elite media and worked
together collaboratively to discredit, surveil, infiltrate, entrap and demonize the
administration in order to torpedo Trumps "America First" political agenda, and remove him from
office?
Which party?
No one disputes the Democrats right to challenge, criticize or vigorously oppose a bill or
policy promoted by the president. What we take issue with is the devious and (possibly) illegal
way the Democrats have joined powerful elements in the Intelligence Community and the major
media to conduct a ruthless "dirty tricks" campaign that involved spying on members of the
administration in order to establish the basis for impeachment proceedings. This is not the
behavior of a respected political organization but the illicit conduct of a fifth column acting
on behalf of a foreign (or corporate?) enemy. It's worth noting that an insurrection against
the nation's lawful authority is sedition, a felony that is punishable by imprisonment or
death. Perhaps, the junta leaders should consider the possible consequences of their actions
before they make their next move.
What we need to know is whether the Democrat party operates independent of the Intel
agencies with which it cooperated during its campaign against Trump? We're hopeful that the
Durham investigation will shed more light on this matter. Our fear is that what we're seeing is
an emerging Axis–the CIA, the DNC, and the elite media– all using their respective
powers to terminate the Constitutional Republic and establish permanent, authoritarian
one-party rule. As far-fetched as it might sound, the country appears to be slipping inexorably
towards tyranny.
"... Schorr's relentless reporting on these matters reflected a fundamental reality of American politics in those times. If you worked within the national security establishment and involved yourself in abuses of power, you would do well to beware the forces of American liberalism, for they would assuredly come after you. Liberalism was, in those days, the watchdog of American politics, rooting out abuses of power at the CIA, the FBI, and other law enforcement and national security agencies. ..."
"... Even as the Cold War lingered as a specter of danger to America and the West, the liberal moviemakers of Hollywood often ignored all that in preference of their favorite boogeymen -- bad guys at the upper levels of government agencies. ..."
"... director Sydney Pollack brought out Three Days of the Condor , starring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway. It tells the story of Joe Turner (Redford), a studious CIA researcher who works at a clandestine New York front organization. He returns to his office from a lunch carryout errand one day to find all his colleagues slaughtered. Seeking help from CIA officials, he soon discovers that his agency handlers are complicit in ongoing efforts to get him killed. ..."
"... It's a slick and engaging romp of a movie, but think about its message -- even amidst the dangers of Cold War diplomacy, the real threat resided in the CIA. Power corrupts. Beware the unaccountable official with cloak and dagger. ..."
"... In the 1986 thriller F/X , the bad guys are Justice Department officials maneuvering in a dark underworld of intrigue and corruption. In The Pelican Brief (1993), the villain is an oil tycoon willing to assassinate Supreme Court justices who could thwart his drilling plans, which he gets away with for a considerable time in part because he'd wormed his way into the inner circle of the president and his chief of staff. When Tom Cruise, as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible (1996), seeks to extricate himself from a frame-up, he discovers that his tormenter is his boss, the head of the fabled Mission Impossible Force, who had faked his own death in furtherance of his dastardly aims. ..."
"... More recently, in the post-9/11 era, a 2013 British-American movie called Closed Circuit begins with a bombing that appears to be a product of Islamist fundamentalism. But as the drama unfolds, it turns out the evildoers are -- you guessed it -- officials of MI5. ..."
"... And yet here we are, with more revelations trickling out regularly about the origins of this mysterious Russia probe and an initiative on the part of the outgoing administration to spy on the people of the incoming administration. You don't have to be Sean Hannity to ask the question: what in the world was going on here? And yet the presumed paragons of the liberal establishment media -- The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, MSNBC, various web outlets -- simply refused to accept that there might be a story there. They joined the national security establishment in declaring that the only investigation worth pursuing centered on Russian collusion and likely treason at the highest levels of the Donald Trump entourage. ..."
In April 1975, former director of national intelligence
Richard Helms, then the U.S. ambassador to Iran, left a hearing room where he had been grilled
for three hours about CIA misdeeds then coming to light in the wake of the Watergate scandal.
Seeing CBS reporter Daniel Schorr waiting outside, the normally controlled spymaster lashed out
with breathtaking venom.
"Killer Schorr! Killer Schorr!" he shouted at the newsman, who had just aired a story
alleging CIA assassination attempts against various foreign leaders. At a subsequent news
conference, he responded to a Schorr question by saying, "I don't like the lies you've been
putting on the air."
At the time of Helms' outburst, Dan Schorr was known by serious viewers of television news
as a man of undisguised liberalism, an identity that would become more pronounced when he later
became an on-air commentator for CNN and NPR. But even as early as 1964, during the Lyndon
Johnson-Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, he'd revealed his political bias by reporting
falsely from Germany that Goldwater planned to kick off his fall campaign in, of all places,
Bavaria, "center of Germany's right wing" and "Hitler's one-time stomping ground." He said
Goldwater had given an interview to the magazine Der Spiegel "appealing to right-wing
elements in Germany." There were even signs "that the American and German right wings are
joining up."
It was all bogus. Goldwater had no plans to campaign in Germany and in fact had not
mentioned Germany in any way suggested by Schorr. The Der Spiegel interview was a
reprint that had originally been published elsewhere and didn't appeal to German political
sensibilities at all. It should have been a firing offense, but Schorr survived it. Hence, in
1975, he was in Washington covering national security matters and filling the CBS airwaves with
abundant scoops laying bare security agency abuses then tumbling out of two congressional
investigations and another promulgated by the Gerald Ford administration.
Schorr's relentless reporting on these matters reflected a fundamental reality of American
politics in those times. If you worked within the national security establishment and involved
yourself in abuses of power, you would do well to beware the forces of American liberalism, for
they would assuredly come after you. Liberalism was, in those days, the watchdog of American
politics, rooting out abuses of power at the CIA, the FBI, and other law enforcement and
national security agencies.
Conservatives back then tended to defend those agencies or at least warn ominously against
undermining their ability to do their jobs. Liberals seemed more motivated by the age-old
warning -- often embraced by conservatives in other contexts -- that power corrupts and that
especially those holding stealthy power needed to be watched closely and reined in.
Thinking back on those days, one wonders about today's liberal establishment. How could it
be so blasé about what are clear abuses of power by law enforcement and intelligence
officials in the now-infamous Russian collusion probe? How could it be so aggressive in
defending those actions even as their abusive nature becomes increasingly clear? Where are the
Dan Schorrs of today?
And it wasn't just liberals in journalism and the political arena who raised warnings about
corruption in the national security state. Consider the popular culture of that time. Even as
the Cold War lingered as a specter of danger to America and the West, the liberal moviemakers
of Hollywood often ignored all that in preference of their favorite boogeymen -- bad guys at
the upper levels of government agencies.
In 1975, the same year that "Killer Schorr" was bedeviling Richard Helms, director Sydney
Pollack brought out Three Days of the Condor , starring Robert Redford and Faye Dunaway.
It tells the story of Joe Turner (Redford), a studious CIA researcher who works at a
clandestine New York front organization. He returns to his office from a lunch carryout errand
one day to find all his colleagues slaughtered. Seeking help from CIA officials, he soon
discovers that his agency handlers are complicit in ongoing efforts to get him killed. After an
intense and suspenseful cat-and-mouse drama, we learn that the CIA's deputy director of
operations for the Middle East had grown agitated when he'd learned that a Turner research
report had provided links to a rogue operation bent on seizing Middle Eastern oil fields.
Fearing its disclosure, he had privately ordered Turner's New York section to be killed
off.
It's a slick and engaging romp of a movie, but think about its message -- even amidst the
dangers of Cold War diplomacy, the real threat resided in the CIA. Power corrupts. Beware the
unaccountable official with cloak and dagger.
And consider how Joe Turner manages to expose the CIA corruption and finally extract himself
from danger. He gives the story to The New York Times , that cathedral of journalistic
liberalism. That may have been a clever move back in 1975, but it wouldn't work today. The
Times is now hermetically aligned with the national security establishment. The leaks it
publishes all come from that establishment and are usually self-protective in nature, rather
than from those who wish to expose wayward corruption.
Later, after the Cold War had ended, liberal moviemakers continued to focus on treachery in
the national security labyrinth. In the 1986 thriller F/X , the bad guys are Justice
Department officials maneuvering in a dark underworld of intrigue and corruption. In The
Pelican Brief (1993), the villain is an oil tycoon willing to assassinate Supreme Court
justices who could thwart his drilling plans, which he gets away with for a considerable time
in part because he'd wormed his way into the inner circle of the president and his chief of
staff. When Tom Cruise, as Ethan Hunt in Mission: Impossible (1996), seeks to extricate
himself from a frame-up, he discovers that his tormenter is his boss, the head of the fabled
Mission Impossible Force, who had faked his own death in furtherance of his dastardly aims.
More recently, in the post-9/11 era, a 2013 British-American movie called Closed
Circuit begins with a bombing that appears to be a product of Islamist fundamentalism. But
as the drama unfolds, it turns out the evildoers are -- you guessed it -- officials of MI5.
And don't forget Oliver Stone's JFK (1991), which suggests roundly that the man
behind the John Kennedy assassination was his own vice president, Lyndon Johnson -- despite the
total lack of any evidence of Johnson complicity. Although Stone's biopic is entertaining and
often authentic in its rendition of events, it nonetheless rises to ridiculous and disturbing
heights in pressing the popular culture obsession with what might be called "the enemy
within."
How do we account for this obsession on the part of American liberalism? Perhaps it can be
attributed in part to the fact that most liberals were civil libertarians, fearful of threats
to individualism from any quarter, even from elements of big government (other government
agencies didn't seem to bother them much). That was, after all, the post-Vietnam era, when
antiwar activists embraced a kind of liberal isolationism that began with the proposition that
America was a rogue nation likely to spread pain and suffering whenever it ventured out into
the world. That being the case (in this view), it followed that those who wanted to take
America into the world were particularly susceptible to villainy.
Taken to extremes, this was not a healthy attitude, for it undermined confidence in American
institutions. But in a general sense, it served to remind people of a fundamental reality of
any civic structure -- that governmental power needs to be curtailed and monitored lest it be
abused. And this is particularly true in the area of national security, shrouded in secrecy as
it is.
And yet here we are, with more revelations trickling out regularly about the origins of this
mysterious Russia probe and an initiative on the part of the outgoing administration to spy on
the people of the incoming administration. You don't have to be Sean Hannity to ask the
question: what in the world was going on here? And yet the presumed paragons of the liberal
establishment media -- The New York Times , The Washington Post , CNN, MSNBC,
various web outlets -- simply refused to accept that there might be a story there. They joined
the national security establishment in declaring that the only investigation worth pursuing
centered on Russian collusion and likely treason at the highest levels of the Donald Trump
entourage.
That's getting harder and harder to sustain as new revelations raise new questions and as
more pieces of the puzzle come together. It now appears likely that the mystery will be
unraveled in the end.
But the mystery of today's liberal media will linger on. Daniel Schorr of CBS wasn't an
unblemished reporter, as his egregious report on Goldwater attests. But he could smell a story
when it was under his nose, and he never aligned himself with unaccountable power cloaked in
secrecy. He also never lost sight of an immutable fact of political life: power corrupts.
Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is the
author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century (Simon
& Schuster).
Except for Argo, the entire Mission:impossible series, Zero Dark Thirty, every Jack Ryan
reboot, Taken, The Expendables series, The Man from U.N.C.L.E., White House Dow, Olympus
has Fallen, and basically every action movie ever, Hollywood would never say anything nice
about the Intelligence Community.
No. The real reasons NYT, et. al aren't reporting on the stories the way you want them
to is because a) we know the origins of the Russian probe (Australia told us) b) the Obama
admin wasn't spying on Trump (that's like the 3rd dumbest conspiracy theory from Trump's
twitter this week).
You do in fact "be Sean Hannity to ask the question", because Sean Hannity the TV
character is dumb and it's a question dumb people ask.
This article ignores what actually happened. The ruling establishment, acting through
its deep state components, took over its critics on the left as it had previously taken
over its critics on the right. That's exactly what intelligence agencies are designed to
do.
Opposition is not to be completely squashed except in rare cases; it's to be
subverted, corrupted and controlled. Note Orwell's 1984 for a classical fiction
account.
Note socialist journalist Diana Johnstone's recent memoir Circle in the Darkness for how
this was accomplished in Europe. This may provide a clarity not obscured by US
partisanship. Then apply those insights to the US. Or dismiss all the above as a conspiracy
theory and we all know that spy and "law" enforcement agencies never engage in
conspiracies.
Speaking only for myself... I'm a lefty guy and I despise the national security apparatus
and all the awful people working in the military and defense contractors. They are evil.
The merchants of death. War criminals. Mercenary thugs. PTSD ridden cowards who are a
danger to their friends, families, co-workers and, ultimately themselves. They are the ones
who make life miserable for billions of people all over the world. Good luck.
I endorse the sentiment that the national security apparatus as a whole is an enormous
force for evil in the world. But I cannot agree with your blanket condemnation of all the
people who work for it.
I have several acquaintances and relatives who have been in the military, or worked for
defense contractors, and even one who worked for the NSA. A few of them are sociopaths, but
most of them (including the one who worked for the NSA) are decent people, and for the most
part they sincerely believed that they were working on the side of the angels. I think they
were misguided in that belief, and some probably deluded themselves into thinking that so
they could keep a job they, for various reasons, liked or needed. But for most, I do not
question their sincerity and motivation.
None of that excuses the people at the top of those organizations, who very well
knew exactly what their actions were bringing about in the world and who deserve a
reckoning at the Hague.
Some liberals still despise the national security state. If you visit new media platforms,
you can see or hear Jimmy Dore, Matt Taibbi, Aaron Mate and others who view Russiagate as a
hoax.
I would say that MSM cynicism and scrutiny towards the military and govt agencies grew in
the 70's post Vietnam war and then peaked during Reagan's term with Iran/Contra. And you
know what, that was a renaissance for our military as the Vietnam era veterans now officers
of an all volunteer force performed extremely well during Desert Storm to prove that their
stuff actually did work in the desert. It was also the peak of our influence in the world
as H.W. Bush built a real coalition and to the shock of the Neocons, 'GASP!' kept his word
and stuck within the UN charter that we sponsored.
The post-9/11 requirement to fawn over the military and unquestioned loyalty to all
aspects of our security establishment is eroding all aspects of our military preparedness,
morale, and world standing while we scream we are #1, join us in our fight against China,
Iran, Russia, and Venezuela (or else!).
Since this article brought up pop-culture, pre-9/11 X-files obviously unflattering to
govt, and I almost cried watching an Nat. Lampoon movies that implied that law enforcement
guys kind of like using excessive force to destroy houses (sorry cops, it was funny). Post
9/11, I'm waiting for the reboot of '24' and I wasn't shocked when 'Navy Seals' was
renewed.
"... The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop. ..."
"... The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA, Pentagon, National Security Council and State
Department are seeking nomination as Democratic candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of military-intelligence
personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance
of power in the lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence
background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently
clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq,
who worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top aide to John Negroponte, the
first director of national intelligence. After her deep involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where,
as a principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of responsibility included drone
warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare. Elissa Slotkin
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its top candidates, part of the so-called
"Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan,
which includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing
the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of
the Democratic Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic primary campaigns that,
with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
The 23rd Congressional District in Texas, which includes a vast swathe of the US-Mexico border along the Rio Grande, features
a contest for the Democratic nomination between Gina Ortiz Jones, an Air Force intelligence officer in Iraq, who subsequently served
as an adviser for US interventions in South Sudan and Libya, and Jay Hulings. The latter's website describes him as a former national
security aide on Capitol Hill and federal prosecutor, whose father and mother were both career undercover CIA agents. The incumbent
Republican congressman, Will Hurd, is himself a former CIA agent, so any voter in that district will have his or her choice of intelligence
agency loyalists in both the Democratic primary and the general election.
CNN's "State of the Union" program on March 4 included a profile of Jones as one of many female candidates seeking nomination
as a Democrat in Tuesday's primary in Texas. The network described her discreetly as a "career civil servant." However, the Jones
for Congress website positively shouts about her role as a spy, noting that after graduating from college, "Gina entered the US Air
Force as an intelligence officer, where she deployed to Iraq and served under the US military's 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy" (the
last phrase signaling to those interested in such matters that Jones is gay).
According to her campaign biography, Ortiz Jones was subsequently detailed to a position as "senior advisor for trade enforcement,"
a post President Obama created by executive order in 2012. She would later be invited to serve as a director for investment at the
Office of the US Trade Representative, where she led the portfolio that reviewed foreign investments to ensure they did not pose
national security risks. With that background, if she fails to win election, she can surely enlist in the trade war efforts of the
Trump administration.
Even before Rep. Tulsi Gabbard threatened to
boycott the October 15th Dem debate as the DNC usurps the role of voters in the Democratic primacy 2020 election and with an
impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump on the table, the Swamp was stirred and its slimy muck may be about to come to
the surface as never before.
If so, those revelations are long overdue.
It is no secret to the observant that since the 2016 election, the Democratic Party has been in a state of near-collapse, the
victim of its own hubris, having lost their moral compass with unsubstantiated Russisgate allegations; those accusations continue
as a futile exercise of domestic regime change.
Today's Dems are less than a bona fide opposition party offering zero policy solutions, unrecognizable from past glories and
not the same political party many of us signed up for many years ago. Instead, the American public is witnessing a frenzied, unscrupulous
strategy.
Desperate in the denial of its demise, confronting its own shadow of corruption as the Dems have morphed into a branch of the
CIA – not unlike origins of the East German Stasi government.
It should not be necessary to say but in today's hyper volatile political climate it is: No American should be labelled as anything
other than a loyal American to be deeply disturbed by the Democrat/CIA collusion that is currently operating an unprecedented
Kangaroo Court in secret, behind closed doors; thus posing an ominous provocation to what remains of our Constitutional Republic.
As any politically savvy, independent thinking American might grasp, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck
Schumer and their entire coterie of sycophants always knew that Russiagate was a crock of lies.
They lied to their willing Democratic rank n file, they lied to American public and they continue to lie about their bogus Impeachment
campaign.
It may be that whistleblower
Ed Snowden's revelations about the NSA surveillance state was the first inkling for many Americans that there is a Big Problem
with an out-of-control intelligence community until Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that
Trump was being 'really dumb " in daring to question Intel's faulty conclusion that Russia hacked the 2016 election.
"Let me tell you. You take on the intelligence community = they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you."
Inescapably, Schumer was suggesting that the Congress has no oversight, that there is no accountability and that the US has lost
its democratic roots when a newly elected President does not have the authority to question or publicly disagree with any of the
Intel agencies.
Since the 2016 election, there has been a steady drumbeat of the US Intel's unabashed efforts to undermine and otherwise prevent
a newly elected President from governing – which sounds like a clear case of insubordination or some might call it treasonous.
The Intel antipathy does not appear to be rooted in cuts to a favorite social services program but rather protecting a power,
financial and influence agenda that
goes
far deeper and more profound than most Americans care to contemplate.
Among a plethora of egregious corporate media reactions, no doubt stirred by their Intel masters, was to a
July, 2018 summit meeting between Russian President Putin and Trump in Helsinki emblematic of illegitimate censures from Intel
veterans and its cronies:
Not one praised Trump for pursuing peace with Russia.
And yet, fellow Americans, it is curious to consider that there was no outrage after the 911 attacks in 2001 from any member of
Congress, President Bush or the Corporate Media that the US intelligence community had utterly failed in its mission to keep the
American public safe.
There was no reckoning, not one person in authority was held accountable, not one person who had the responsibility to 'know'
was fired from any of the Intel agencies. Why is that?
As a result of the corrupt foundation of the Russiagate allegations, Attorney General Bob Barr and Special Investigator John Durham
appear
hot on the trail with law enforcement in Italy as they have apparently scared the bejesus out of what little common sense remains
among the Democratic hierarchy as if Barr/Durham might be headed for Obama's Oval Office.
Barr's earlier comment before the Senate that " spying did occur' and that '
it's a big deal' when
an incumbent administration (ie the Obama Administration) authorizes a counter-Intelligence operation on an opposing candidate (ie
Donald Trump) has the Dems in panic-stricken overdrive – and that is what is driving the current Impeachment Inquiry.
With the stark realization that none of the DNC's favored top tier candidates has the mojo to go the distance, the Democrats have
now focused on a July 25th
phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump allegedly ' pressured ' Zelenskyy to investigate
Joe Biden's relationship with Burisma, the country's largest natural gas provider.
Zelenskyy, who defeated the US-endorsed incumbent President Petro Poroshenko in a landslide victory, speaks Russian, was elected
to clean up corruption and end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The war in the Donbass began as a result of the US State Department's
role in the
overthrow of democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014.
Trump's first priority on July 25th was
Crowd Strike , a cybersecurity firm with links to the HRC campaign which was hired by the DNC to investigate Russian hacking
of its server.
The Dems have reason to be concerned since it is worth contemplating why the FBI did not legally mandate that the DNC turn its
server over to them for an official Federal forensic inspection.
One can only speculate those chickens may be coming home to roost.
Days after an anonymous whistleblower (not to be confused with a real whistleblower like Edward Snowden) later identified as a
CIA analyst with a professional history linked to Joe Biden,
publicly released a
Complaint against
Trump.
House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi announced
the initiation of an ambiguous Impeachment Inquiry campaign with little specificity about the process. The Complaint is suspect since
it reads more like a professionally prepared Affidavit and the Dems consider Pelosi's statement as sufficient to initiate a formal
process that fails to follow the time-honored path of a full House vote predicating a legitimate impeachment inquiry on to the Judiciary
Committee.
Of special interest is how the process to date is playing out with the House Intelligence Committee in a key role conducting what
amounts to
clandestine meetings , taking depositions and witness statements behind closed doors with a still secret unidentified whistleblower's
identity and voice obscured from Republican members of the Intel Committee and a witness testifying without being formally sworn
in – all too eerily similar to East Germany.
The pretense of shielding the thinly veiled CIA operative as a whistleblower from public exposure can only be seen as an overly-dramatic
transparent performance as the Dems have never exhibited any concern about protecting real whistleblowers like Snowden, Chelsea Manning,
Bill Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, Julian Assange, Jeffrey Sterling and others who were left to fend for themselves as the
Obama Administration prosecuted more true, authentic whistleblowers than any other administration since the
Espionage Act of 1917 .
As the paradigm shift takes its toll on the prevailing framework of reality and our decayed political institutions, (the FBI and
DOJ come to mind as the Inspector General's report is due at week's end), how much longer does the Democratic Party, which no longer
serves a useful public purpose, deserve to exist?
"... Democratic Party leaders are currently under fire for staging a ridiculous performative display of sympathy for George Floyd by kneeling for eight minutes while wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African textile. The streets of America are filled with protesters demanding a total overhaul of the nation's entire approach to policing. ..."
"... I don't know what will happen with these protests. I don't know if the demonstrators will get anything like the changes they are pushing for, or if their movement will be stopped in its tracks. What I do know is that if it is stopped, it will be because of Democrats and their allies. ..."
"... The op-ed understandably received severe public backlash which resulted in a senior staff member's resignation . But if these protests end it won't be because tyrants in the Republican Party like Donald Trump and Tom Cotton succeeded in making the case for beating them into silence with the U.S. military. It will be because liberal manipulators succeeded in co-opting and stagnating its momentum. ..."
"... It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face. ..."
"... Obama was not the lesser of two evils, he was the more effective of the two evils ..."
"... The rot started long before Clinton. In the 1944 election the DNC replaced FDR's highly popular socialist VP Henry Wallace with Truman. At the convention party leaders closed the voting immediately after Wallace won resoundingly without confirming him. Furious politicking, bribery, and delegate lockouts over the next several days finally resulted in a Truman win and his immediate confirmation as the VP candidate. ..."
"... I agree on what the Democrat Party is and does. However, I'd shift the focus to the money behind it. The forces resisting change are what FDR called the moneyed interests. They've got the money, and their whole priority is to keep it. ..."
"... given a Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech and a Congress that's never has had any will to change the role of money or lobbies in politics, I'm afraid you are stuck with what you have. ..."
"... There is another well-known Twentieth Century play, "No Exit." And that title sums up the American very real situation. ..."
So ends both acts of the Samuel Beckett play "Waiting for Godot." One of the two main
characters suggests leaving, the other agrees, followed by the stage direction that both remain
motionless until curtain.
This is also the entire role of the Democratic Party. To enthusiastically agree with
American support for movements calling for real changes which benefit ordinary people, while
making no actual moves to provide no such changes. The actors read the lines, but remain
motionless.
Barack Obama made a whole political career out of this. People elected him because he
promised hope and change, then for eight years whenever hopeful people demanded changes he'd
say "Yes, we all need to get together and have a conversation about that," express sympathy and
give a moving speech, and then nothing would happen. The actors remain motionless, and Godot
never comes.
Democratic Party leaders are
currently under fire for staging a ridiculous performative display of sympathy for George
Floyd by kneeling for eight minutes while wearing Kente cloth, a traditional African textile.
The streets of America are filled with protesters demanding a total overhaul of the nation's
entire approach to policing.
Meanwhile it's blue states with Democratic governors and cities with Democratic mayors where
the bulk of the police brutality, people are objecting to, is occurring. The Democrats are
going out
of their way to spin police brutality as the result of Trump's presidency, but facts in
evidence say America's violent and increasingly militarized police force would be a problem if
every seat in every office in America were blue.
I don't know what will happen with these protests. I don't know if the demonstrators will
get anything like the changes they are pushing for, or if their movement will be stopped in its
tracks. What I do know is that if it is stopped, it will be because of Democrats and their
allies.
Bloodthirsty Senator Tom Cotton recently took a break from torturing small animals in his
basement to write an incendiary op-ed for
The New York Times explaining to the American public why using the military to quash
these protests is something that they should want. We later learned that The New York
Times op-ed team had actually come up with the idea and
pitched it to the senator , not the other way around, and that it was the Times itself which
came up with the inflammatory headline "Send In the Troops."
From New York Times town hall: op-ed team pitched the piece TO Tom Cotton. Not the other
way around.
The op-ed understandably received severe public backlash which resulted in a senior staff member's
resignation . But if these protests end it won't be because tyrants in the Republican Party
like Donald Trump and Tom Cotton succeeded in making the case for beating them into silence
with the U.S. military. It will be because liberal manipulators succeeded in co-opting and
stagnating its momentum.
Watch them. Watch Democrats and their allied media and corporate institutions try to sell
the public a bunch of words and a smattering of feeble, impotent legislation to mollify the
masses, without ever giving the people the real changes that they actually need.
It remains to be seen if they will succeed in doing this, but they are already working on
it. That is their entire purpose. It's much easier to control a populace with false promises
and empty words than with brute force, and the manipulators know it. That is the Democratic
Party's role.
It is true that there's a difference between Democrats and Republicans, in the same sense
that there's a difference between the jab and the cross in boxing. The jab is often used to
keep an opponent at bay and set up the more damaging cross, but they're both wielded by the
same boxer, and they're both punching you in the face.
Don't let them disguise that jab as anything other than what it is. Don't let them keep you
at bay with a bunch of impotent performances and word magic. If they have it their way, they'll
keep that jab in your face all night until the knockout punch leaves you staring up at the
arena lights like it always does, wondering what the hell happened and why Godot never
came.
When you vote for a "lesser" evil, you condone and become evil. Voting for a peace
candidate is the ONLY moral choice. Your line of thinking perpetuates a self-fulfilling
prophecy of third party impossibility. So time for you to "get real". I also think it is
imperative to insist on ranked-choice voting to get us out of the two party/one war party
trap. BTW, Obama had his own brand of fascism. When we are the "exceptional" nation, all
others are unexceptional and their citizens expendable. Your TDS has blinded you to our real
problems.
AnneR , June 10, 2020 at 12:36
So what we are supposed to do, then, is vote for the very same evil, just enacted with a
softer, gentler voice and smoother patina? And by the way, I'm a MA in History
We change absolutely zero domestically and minus zero abroad in those countries where we
gaily – apparently – bomb and missile as if there were no tomorrow (for the
recipients [all brownish you'll note], dead, injured or alive), no matter which colored face
of the single party we "lesser evil" choose. Frankly pretending that there is such a thing as
"lesser evil" voting when both parties behave in the same way, with different lipstick on is
a tad hypocritical because all it boils down to is "we want a smiley, pleasant, charmingly
spoken well educated barbarian rather than a grotesque, in your face, thicko one in
charge."
No, ta. I'd rather vote my conscience, my principles which have nowt to do with either of
corporate-capitalist-imperialist-MIC adoring-barbarian faces of the same bloody (literally)
party.
Marc G Landry , June 10, 2020 at 12:38
For a history teacher, you seem to have given up on Democracy because you hate Trump.
America WORKED when people voted their conscience, NOT for a lesser of two evils. And if
people did this, within 12 years a THIRD PARTY would become strong enough to make the change
we want. Democracy works when people vote their conscience, by person or by platform, NOT
when everyone has to figure out a strategy who to vote for because you do not have the
strength to vote by conscience or the guts to build a new party OVER TIME!
Glen Ford, of the excellent BlackAgendaReport, put it well: Obama was not the lesser of
two evils, he was the more effective of the two evils. It seems to work with a lot of people
who can't let go of their "liberal" perspective.
Anything goes, as long as it's served up on a politically correct platter.
John , June 9, 2020 at 16:51
and the solution is to (a) vote them out of office, (b) vote for the repubs, (c) vote for
third party, (d) don't vote, (e) general strike and continuous demonstrations? My answer is
both d and e. How about you?
Drew Hunkins , June 9, 2020 at 16:09
The Democratic Party hasn't done one substantive thing for the masses since Medicare c.
1966.
The destruction of unions and the labor movement is one of the prime reasons we're in this
mess. Strong unions means the Democratic Party would have a wing of populist firebrands with
moxie and muscle, voicing objections in Washington, advocating for progressive reforms,
pounding the table, attacking Wall Street and big money, and most imporantly -- delivering
substantive tangible benefits to the people every few years!! The labor movement would have
cultivated these public speakers and activist politicians who had boatloads of chutzpah,
instead what we're left with is a slickie boy Wall St hustler like Obama.
Litchfield , June 9, 2020 at 16:56
Right on!
Pushing the nonexistent "agree" button.
See also my comment in which I recommend reading Thomas Frank's "Listen, Liberal" for a
really great tour of the downfall of the Dem Party, very well documented, and a pleasure to
read.
It was not only labor that the "new" Dems under Clinton sucker-punched. They made a
practice of demonstrating to Wall Street, the NYT, and other "liberal" entities (ha ha sob)
and pundits that they were happy and willing to deny, Judas-like, and actually to attack
their traditional constituencies, the source of the their original power and their raison
d'etre since the thirties.
Now what one sees coming to the fore is the longer history of the damned Dems, that of
cravenness compromise to the Jim Crow South and to other atavistic powers such as the
National Security State, the MIC, the prisons-for-profit complex, and other such horrors.
It is like we're seeing that this leopard-party can't really changes its spots.
There is no reason and really no justification for giving one's vote to this Democratic
Party.
Litchfield , June 9, 2020 at 15:36
For chapter and verse, and very witty commentary, on how the Democratic Party became the
party that destroyed the (1) the working class, (2) the poor in America and especially their
children, and (3) now, the middle class is available, see:
"Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People?", by Thomas Frank.
Caitlin, I urge you to read it. Also, the notes, which are thorough and informative in
themselves.
All the answers to the questions you pose are there. The true rot starts with Bill Clinton
and the DLC, which he headed. Or course Hillary was there with him the whole time. Mouthing
one set of platitudes for the public ("I feel your pain") and conspiring with Republicans and
other Democrats to push and pass legislation that inexorably destroyed huge swaths of the
USA: NAFTA; repeal of Glass-Steagall; welfare "reform"; three-strikes legislation; creation
of prisons for profit (Biden was big in this); introduction of almost 100 new crimes with
mandatory minimum sentencing; and more.
Then we move on to "hope and change" Obama (with his sidekick, Larry Summers): bailout of
banks, not of citizens; health care "reform" written by Repugs; more foreign adventures in
Libya, Afghanistan, etc. and more deaths and maimings of American servicepeople; and on and
on. And all the while a concerted effort to ignore the white working class and to accuse any
white who didn't like this crappy new deal and loss of livelihood and dignity as a racist.
Since I first voted in 1968, as a registered Dem, I have been along for this ride since the
beginning and I recall only too clearly my horror -- after feeling with Clinton's win in 1992
that we were finally getting off the awful post-assassination "detour" -- at hearing of all
of these new destructive, unfair, "Democratic" initiatives in the 1990s and at their actually
being passed.
As Frank remarks, voting for Trump was the working class's richly deserved payback to the
Clintons for decades of policies that punished America's 99% both directly (targeted) and
indirectly. As he puts it, with Trump leading the Repugs and, for the first time, talking
about the hits the working class had taken under the Dems, bad trade deals, etc., suddenly
there *was* "someplace else to go" for previous Dem voters. It should have been no surprise
that working-class white and also many blacks and women went there.
But the Dems still insist that they occupy the moral "liberal" high ground, with
absolutely no foundation for doing so except for empty identitarianist bromides and silliness
such as the kneeling show. Now, the Floyd killing is being used to further deflect attention
from the Dems' catastrophic record regarding the WHOLE American 99%, white and minority, men
and women.
Trump makes it easy to blame the whole mess on him. But the Dems, with their decades of
betrayal of the American people and kicking their constituents in the gut, brought us
Trump.
The complacent Dem self-righteousness jacks up the puke index that much more.
buy my vote , June 10, 2020 at 11:57
The rot started long before Clinton. In the 1944 election the DNC replaced FDR's highly
popular socialist VP Henry Wallace with Truman. At the convention party leaders closed the
voting immediately after Wallace won resoundingly without confirming him. Furious
politicking, bribery, and delegate lockouts over the next several days finally resulted in a
Truman win and his immediate confirmation as the VP candidate.
FDR's rapidly deteriorating health made it clear that the VP would be the next president.
The DNC, firmly in the hands of corporate industrialists, insured that the VP was compliant
with their program. Truman was a failed businessman, not particularly intelligent, and the
perfect puppet. You can thank him and the DNC for the Cold War.
Mark Thomason , June 9, 2020 at 14:14
I agree on what the Democrat Party is and does. However, I'd shift the focus to the money behind it. The forces resisting change are what FDR called the moneyed interests. They've got the
money, and their whole priority is to keep it.
They realized that they could buy up the only "alternative" to themselves, and prevent
there from being anybody at all willing to be a real alternative. They do. That is for
example what Biden has always been, the Senator from money based in the corporate and banking
HQ's of Delaware. Hence is sponsorship of the anti-consumer laws such as his bankruptcy
bill.
The Democratic Party is the only place that could be a political home for reformers. It
once was. It might be again. But first, money would need to be disempowered.
JOHN CHUCKMAN , June 9, 2020 at 14:01
Indeed. But it's the money-rotted political system that brings the result. And given a Supreme Court ruling that money is free speech and a Congress that's never has
had any will to change the role of money or lobbies in politics, I'm afraid you are stuck
with what you have.
There is another well-known Twentieth Century play, "No Exit." And that title sums up the American very real situation.
This actually started with Clintons, who also can be viewed as CIA democrats. (especially Hillary)
In no way Sanders supporters will vote for Biden. They will stay home or vote for the third party candidate. This is kind
of mini-civil war withing the Dem Party and while Clinton wing won, this is a Pyrrhic victory.
Notable quotes:
"... There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first James Comey and then Robert Mueller. ..."
"... There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital. ..."
"... What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering. ..."
This is what I was thinking. It was obvious from 2015 that one of Trump's most effective messages was his criticism of the
Iraq War, of Nato, Syria and the endless occupation of Afghanistan. We can also set aside the fact that he has largely failed
to do much of what he implied in his campaign. The point is that he campaigned to the left of the Democrats on these issues and
did it knowingly -- and that this was a message that resonated with, as you say, voters connected in some way to the military.
Also significant in this context is that since his election, the mainstream Washington Dems have focused (besides their interminable
obsession with 'civility') on cultivating ever greater ties with the military and intelligence services.
There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first
James Comey and then Robert Mueller.
There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital.
What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering.
In this context, too, it is significant that the Dem mandarins have chosen Joe Biden, probably the most right wing of all the
remaining opponents facing off against Bernie -- definitely worse than Obama (remember that when he chose Biden as VP it was viewed
rightly as throwing a bone to the Blue Dogs and other Dem reactionaries!) and almost certainly worse even than HRC herself.
But it doesn't have to be that way. As you suggest, an anti-war message can reach voters in special ways and unite, for example,
groups that would otherwise view themselves as miles apart -- e.g. radicalised young people and rural working class families with
military connections. That is exactly the type of solidarity we need. And therefore almost as exactly the sort of thing that Democrats
minus Bernie will do all they can to prevent coming to pass!
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that direct exposure to the often tragic consequences of serving the American Empire inevitably
leads those affected to critical insights into how it operates or sustains itself – there is a difference between experience and
insight, feeling and knowing. But I believe it does mean there is a very fertile ground for anti-war sentiments in precisely those
groups most frequently dismissed by mainstream Democrats or the media as irredeemably…ahem…deplorable.
Not sure I agree that internationally minded socialism died in the trenches of WWI. It was quite literally murdered in that
war’s aftermath through the brutal suppression of working class struggles like the Spartacist uprising and political assassinations
of figures like Rosa Luxermburg and Karl Liebknecht. And it was ideologically murdered by the capital-assisted rise of fascism
and national chauvinism at precisely the moment when global capitalism was entering a period of potentially terminal crisis. In
that broad sweep of events I would go so far as to include the ascension to power of Stalin in the Soviet Union and his socialism-in-one-country,
which effectively ended the internationalism unleashed by the 1917 Revolution.
After WWII, the capitalist West of course responded to these crises by ceding more ground to workers than they had ever done
before. Socialised healthcare in Europe, the welfare state, access to education, state-led investment. They rightly feared the
consequences of a resurgent international socialism and opted to head things off at the pass (I hate that cliche, to quote Hedley
Lamarr!). But no less influential was the Stalinist Soviet Union’s cynical manipulation of liberation struggles and the various
Communist Parties they funded across the West and Latin America. Their sabotage of the Spanish Republican struggle was here the
template, as they evolved various “popular front” tactics to lead various working-class movements down strategically (for them)
useful blind alleys.
In fact, the list of betrayals committed by the Soviet Union with regard to their international ‘comrades’ bears comparison
with the Democratic Party’s own patented ability to bury social movements in the US – leading bravely and courageously…from behind.
As for Bernie/AOC, their plan to ‘deal with domestic problems first’ is exactly what I take issue with. In the first place,
I see no evidence that the ruling class will allow even their modest policies to be enacted. This is not the Depression Era. Unions
are weak, corrupt or worse. Political consciousness may be growing but remains relatively low compared to the 20th century. There
is no broad mass movement beyond Washington DC which political leaders can use as leverage in the struggles that would inevitably
need to be fought over policies like Medicare for All. Maybe they will emerge once the struggles gain momentum, but for now the
disposition of social forces and political power is very different from the context in which the New Deal was (partially) executed
or the Civil Rights Era in the 60s.
More importantly, though, and what I’ve been trying to get at is the idea that you can effectively decouple domestic from foreign
issues is a mirage. Particularly in a period of unparalleled interconnection where global capital and finance have themselves
eroded the integrity of nation states or their sovereignty. And besides that, Trump’s election has brought into the open the enormous
political power that has been amassed by the military and intelligence services – and which will without doubt be brought to bear
on any Bernie or AOC attempting to bring about domestic reforms opposed by the oligarchy.
I just don’t think it is possible to confront one set of issues without confronting the other – their interrelationship requires
them to be faced at the same time. And that is of course before we talk about the moral imperative to do so.
One last thing – a lesson learned painfully from Labour under Corbyn. His constant capitulations over mainly foreign issues
– Israel, Trident, the Skripal case, Syria, Julian Assange – didn’t free up space or energy to fight for domestic reform. It didn’t
satisfy his opponents in the media or on the right wing of his own party. It signalled his weakness and encouraged them to press
on with ever more insistent demands. And, crucially, it demotivated and demobilised the very popular support on which his insurgent
movement relied. It disillusioned, confused and depressed the energies of those who had powered him to the leadership. And, finally,
it exposed him as weak or vacillating to voters he needed to convince or galvanise.
Now Bernie is a much, much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn, but on the other hand the Democratic Party is
far more corrupt and corporatist, far more detached from and unaccountable to its base of support. The Labour Party, at least,
is a mass membership party with continued trade union links. The Dems are a mafia cartel/protection racket based around no more
than perpetuating the privileges of those they call their own (elected officials, consultants, media cheerleaders etc). As I said
in my first post, I acknowledge he is fighting a very particular fight for the nomination/presidency – and he is kept constantly
busy fending off dishonest attacks from all sides – but if not him, then others, like AOC, need in my view to stop putting off
confrontation over foreign issues for another day – the struggle needs to combine domestic and international otherwise it will
end up sacrificing both.
I don’t think Bernie is a much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn–I think he’s about as bad, so bad that he’s
about to get defeated by a Joe Biden, a pudding brained old man with a terrible record.
But Bernie is going to do a great service (I hope) by losing and that’s to turn the nascent left away from electoralism and
more toward the street, organizing the masses in the manner that the right wing has: by emphasizing propaganda to radicalize the
normies (radio/podcasts/youtube), by siloing cadres into a parallel culture, and by growing tendencies toward revolutionary action
by encouraging socialization with specific political content (in the right wing world these are gun/religious groups).
Out of these social formations, electoral success organically follows. The left ought to build the secular equivalent of evangelical
churches (a Socialist Meeting Hall in every town!) and gun groups (left wing boy scouts and also…left wing gun groups?). Get the
people out of their homes to meet one another in a specific political context. When someone identifies as “Socialist,” it should
be a shorthand for a kind of “social” existence that is notably separate from the “normal” (as it is right now for the Right Wing–a
strong reason, in my view, for the successful rightward political seduction of such a large portion of the masses, who ought to
be easy pickings for the left).
> The overextension of empire is always going to provide its weakest points.
Exhibit A at least in terms of visibility: The supply chain.
It would surely be possible to frame, and possibly even to conceptualize, the combination of gutting manufacturing in this
country and moving it to China as a bad case of Imperial overstretch….
"... The eventual point of neoliberalism, then, is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are superior. ..."
"... Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core ..."
"... The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with high death tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it. ..."
Cassiodorus
on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 5:00pm The neoliberals' cultural stuck is in decline. When they had
that suave dude Barack Obama telling everyone he was like Gandhi or Mandela, that was totally a
thing. Cultural neoliberalism was rockin' da house as every branch of government, both state
and Federal, was being
awarded to Republicans . Then they put all of their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket,
waging a rather nasty campaign to get everyone to step in line while Clinton was and is very
much about money and about the society of her John Birch Society daddy. (She and Bill did make
great-looking hippies in the Sixties though, but you only see that in old photos.) Vote for her
because Trump is Hitler or something.
Now they have what? Pete Buttigieg, who is smarter than you and who reeks insincerity from
every pore of his skin as he delivers wooden imitations of Obama speeches? Michael Bloomberg,
who brags about what he can buy? Grandpa Joe Biden, with initial-stage dementia? Hallmark card
cop Amy Klobuchar, who will work with Republicans while helping maybe five or six people as she
promised? Elizabeth "I'm in it for me" Warren? It's not like these people come naturally to
cultural efflorescence -- they, after all, ran John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis -- but
this has got to be a new low for them, expanding the field to twenty-plus candidates only to
find themselves facing Super Tuesday with only this.
Philosophically, neoliberalism is a form of antihumanism . In an
article in "American Affairs" (which I suggest you all read from beginning to end) the
economist Philip
Mirowski suggests several principles common to neoliberal thought. I'll just post one
through four so as not to freak anyone out while making the point just as effectively:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated
by the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
This then, is the core of neoliberal culture. The eventual point of neoliberalism, then,
is to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are
superior. It took a rabid nationalist like Donald Trump to end the war in Afghanistan , whereas
faithful neoliberal Barack Obama kept the war around because it provided "markets" for weapons
corporations. Neoliberals hate Bernie Sanders because he wants to get rid of some of the
markets for health insurance -- as long as people are buying health insurance, the neoliberals
don't care if anyone dies because they can't afford to use it.
... ... ...
Neoliberalism has been the dominant doctrine throughout the world's universities since the
Eighties. Academic vogues such as "postmodernism" can serve as Trojan Horse concepts for
hegemonic neoliberalism. Postmodernism, to own a definition, is an aesthetic concept involving
the juxtaposition of radically differing aesthetic concepts and celebrating surface
observations over "deeper meanings." The postmodern essence of visual art is in collage; the
postmodern musical form is the medley. Postmodernism is innocuous when it combines medieval
architecture with Frank Lloyd Wright, or when it combines classical music with rock and roll.
Neoliberalism, however, sees in postmodernism a market, something to create new products and
separate people from their money. Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core
.
The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the
regime in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real
September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the
University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to
help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about
democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with
high death
tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or
if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it.
The task of replacing neoliberalism with something else will be a daunting one. Neoliberals
rule the planet today. It appears at this point that our primary weapon is the fact that the
neoliberals don't really have any specific culture; instead, they speculate in culture for the
sake of the fetishes of markets and money and property through which they destroy the planet,
us, and ultimately themselves.
@entrepreneur
by a candidate with a degree in English Literature from Harvard (magna cum laude). Buttigieg
couldn't even win the idiot vote, which he was clearly aiming for. If you think "The shape of
our democracy is the issue that affects every other issue" means something, you are displaying
the Dunning-Kruger effect .
Cassiodorus
on Sun, 03/01/2020 - 5:00pm The neoliberals' cultural stuck is in decline. When they had
that suave dude Barack Obama telling everyone he was like Gandhi or Mandela, that was totally a
thing. Cultural neoliberalism was rockin' da house as every branch of government, both state
and Federal, was being
awarded to Republicans . Then they put all of their eggs in the Hillary Clinton basket,
waging a rather nasty campaign to get everyone to step in line while Clinton was and is very
much about money and about the society of her John Birch Society daddy. (She and Bill did make
great-looking hippies in the Sixties though, but you only see that in old photos.) Vote for her
because Trump is Hitler or something.
Now they have what? Pete Buttigieg, who is smarter than you and who reeks insincerity from
every pore of his skin as he delivers wooden imitations of Obama speeches? Michael Bloomberg,
who brags about what he can buy? Grandpa Joe Biden, with initial-stage dementia? Hallmark card
cop Amy Klobuchar, who will work with Republicans while helping maybe five or six people as she
promised? Elizabeth "I'm in it for me" Warren? It's not like these people come naturally to
cultural efflorescence -- they, after all, ran John Kerry, Al Gore, and Michael Dukakis -- but
this has got to be a new low for them, expanding the field to twenty-plus candidates only to
find themselves facing Super Tuesday with only this.
Philosophically, neoliberalism is a form of antihumanism . In an
article in "American Affairs" (which I suggest you all read from beginning to end) the
economist Philip
Mirowski suggests several principles common to neoliberal thought. I'll just post one
through four so as not to freak anyone out while making the point just as effectively:
(1) "Free" markets do not occur naturally. They must be actively constructed through
political organizing.
(2) "The market" is an information processor, and the most efficient one possible -- more
efficient than any government or any single human ever could be. Truth can only be validated
by the market.
(3) Market society is, and therefore should be, the natural and inexorable state of
humankind.
(4) The political goal of neoliberals is not to destroy the state, but to take control of
it, and to redefine its structure and function, in order to create and maintain the
market-friendly culture.
This then, is the core of neoliberal culture. The eventual point of neoliberalism, then, is
to exalt markets above people -- for the neoliberals, people are expendable but markets are
superior. It took a rabid nationalist like Donald Trump to end the war in Afghanistan , whereas
faithful neoliberal Barack Obama kept the war around because it provided "markets" for weapons
corporations. Neoliberals hate Bernie Sanders because he wants to get rid of some of the
markets for health insurance -- as long as people are buying health insurance, the neoliberals
don't care if anyone dies because they can't afford to use it.
As implied in
this article (password: AddletonAP2009) , the neoliberal "solution" to climate change is
the only one that has been tried. The point of focusing all climate change mitigation efforts
upon "reducing carbon emissions," from the Rio
Earth Summit of 1992 onward, is so that a new line of products can be manufactured to help
consumers reduce their carbon emissions, more efficient fossil-burning machines or alternative
energy machines or carbon permits or easements or something like that. The idea that
manufacturing new products also consumes carbon is not assumed to be a problem. Meanwhile the
fossil energy interests will stay hidden from all of this "mitigation" effort, it being assumed
that the sacred "market" will drive them out of business. Whether said "market" actually does
so, when obviously over the past twenty-eight years it has done nothing of the sort, is
nobody's business. Neoliberals are okay with carbon taxes because they can always be abolished
later, like they were in Australia
, and because their ideas of carbon taxes involve low carbon taxes so as not to hurt
businesses.
Neoliberalism has been the dominant doctrine throughout the world's universities since the
Eighties. Academic vogues such as "postmodernism" can serve as Trojan Horse concepts for
hegemonic neoliberalism. Postmodernism, to own a definition, is an aesthetic concept involving
the juxtaposition of radically differing aesthetic concepts and celebrating surface
observations over "deeper meanings." The postmodern essence of visual art is in collage; the
postmodern musical form is the medley. Postmodernism is innocuous when it combines medieval
architecture with Frank Lloyd Wright, or when it combines classical music with rock and roll.
Neoliberalism, however, sees in postmodernism a market, something to create new products and
separate people from their money. Postmodernism can give neoliberalism a cultural core
. Postmodernism is what is behind Pete Buttigieg's assertion that
people do not have to choose between revolution and the status quo . (Trust me, he's been to universities .)
We just combine them in some kind of postmodern market. Never mind that such an idea
eviscerates the concept of revolution.
The incubator regime for neoliberalism, as numerous authors have pointed out, was the regime
in Chile under the dictatorial junta headed by Augusto Pinochet, beginning on the real
September 11th, in 1973. The Department of Economics at the
University of Chicago , the epicenter of neoliberal thought in America, was brought in to
help Pinochet devise policy. Please keep in mind that neoliberals do not care one whit about
democracy as long as the resultant regimes respect capitalism, and they're also okay with
high death
tolls for the same reason. Neoliberalism is a death culture. You live if you have money or
if you have access to the government which invents money and forces you to use it.
The task of replacing neoliberalism with something else will be a daunting one. Neoliberals
rule the planet today. It appears at this point that our primary weapon is the fact that the
neoliberals don't really have any specific culture; instead, they speculate in culture for the
sake of the fetishes of markets and money and property through which they destroy the planet,
us, and ultimately themselves.
"... Buttigieg and Bloomberg have similar voting blocks to Biden. Buttigieg is the clean cut presidential type with PR trained words, a Biden 2020 model with less baggage. Older whites love him which is why he does well in Iowa and NH. ..."
"... If Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg join forces behind one of them, they won't add any new voters; they'll simply stop stealing votes from each other. Less self-destructive, of course, but hardly enough to beat Sanders. ..."
The Democratic establishment worries that if the "moderates" in the race do not start falling on their swords, dropping out,
and joining behind a single candidate -- Biden, Buttigieg or Bloomberg -- to challenge Sanders, they will lose the nomination
to Sanders and the election to Trump.
Strange and deeply delusional people. Let us imagine they fell on those proverbial swords and joined the forces behind someone.
Why should it work with Democratic voters any better than in did with Republicans in 2016?
Biden's voters are those who believe that he will become Obama's third term; a doubtful assertion, but the number of such believers
is rather stable and won't go either up or down. Warren's voters are more likely to defect to Sanders rather than to anyone else.
Buttigieg's and Bloomberg's voters... Wait. Who exactly those "Buttigieg's and Bloomberg's voters" as a voting bloc even are?
Anyways, the RNC tried a similar trick against Trump in 2016. Everyone knows how well it worked.
Buttigieg and Bloomberg have similar voting blocks to Biden. Buttigieg is the clean cut presidential type with PR trained
words, a Biden 2020 model with less baggage. Older whites love him which is why he does well in Iowa and NH.
Bloomberg is liberal Trump. Big business man that can "get things done". Has an ugly past but who cares. He was getting the
same votes as Biden (both white and non white so long as they are middle agreed and older, all moderates). So basically a Biden
3.0 now with Minority Power and a dash of Trump
Note that was before the Nevada debate.
Note that Warren was supposed to be a Sanders 2.0 with less baggage. The race has always been Biden-like vs Sanders-like. But
Warren couldn't go full Sanders while Biden ended up with that Romney effect where flashy new people would show up look nice then
fade away because they couldn't just stick with the original.
It would be a very different race if it was Biden vs Sanders and that's that. But Sanders side figured it out first.
That's right. If Biden/Buttigieg/Bloomberg join forces behind one of them, they won't add any new voters; they'll simply stop
stealing votes from each other. Less self-destructive, of course, but hardly enough to beat Sanders.
Though I'd disagree that Warren is Sanders 2.0 - as you noted, she cannot go full Sanders. She is Sanders 0.5 at best, if not
Sanders beta.
On the second matter the idea was for her to be Sanders 2.0. But Sanders always goes full Sanders to the point of flat out telling
you that he WILL raise taxes. Warren couldn't go full Sanders and actually tried so sneak into the Biden camp. "Sanders v.5 now
with more Biden" didn't sell well.
(Suddenly imagining a video of Sanders telling Warren to "follow me" then start parkour up a building while Warren watches
helplessly)
On the first I just listened to Mondays episode of political rewind that noted something in Nevada: Sanders only got about
30% of the initial vote which is the closest to a normal primary. His bump to over 45% came as voters of dead candidates had to
move to their second pick.
If this really was a moderate vs radical then Warren votes would go to Bernie and everyone else to Biden or buttigieg. Instead
they mostly went to Sanders. Which means voters went "I would rather have this person but if I can't I'll vote Bernie." Jeeesh
even TAC is doing it with Tulsi compete with hard social conservative folks seemingly to find a reason to vote for Sanders. Jeesh
I did that with Warren.
It's one caucus but it's an interesting idea. What if it's not Anyone but Bernie and more "Bernie is ok but I really like this
person." A mass consolidation may end up pushing them all to their second pick. It also explains why the field is so spread. It's
not confused voters deciding on a moderate. It's fans of a particular candidate that are willing to substitute for Bernie once
they're love drops out.
A consolidated field might not stop Bernie. It might give him the gold.
By the way, Tulsi as a veep candidate would significantly imporove Sanders's chances against Trump during the election itself.
Though picking her will be equal to saying "we're through" to the Democratic establishment. So I'll withhold my opinion as to
whether Bernie will dare to do it until he's nominated - at this point I expect that he will be nominated, unless the DNC
resorts to some highly unconventional (which is, outright fraudulent) measures.
I don't know if Sanders has the courage to nominate someone like Tulsi, but he should, and not just to win the election. If he
nominates some moderate, he'll have to watch his back constantly in fear that he might be given an untimely "heart attack."
Agreed, the idea that Sanders has a significantly lower ceiling than the others fell apart when the second alignment results from
NV came in. There were plenty of people who picked Sanders when they could no longer go with their 1st option.
""Medicare for All." Abolition of private health insurance. War on Wall Street. The Green New Deal. Free college tuition. Forgiveness
of all student debt. Open borders. Supreme Court justices committed to Roe v. Wade. Welfare for undocumented migrants. A doubling
of the minimum wage to $15 an hour."
With the exception of "open borders", which Sanders has repeatedly stated he is against, which of these issues do you think
hurts Sanders with the majority?
Abolition of private health insurance will hurt him with some union members, as well as people who have good health benefits currently.
My parents are public employees, and their insurance costs little and they get access to the best doctors in the area. A MFA system
would increase the demand to see those elite doctors, and they might get squeezed out. And Trump/GOP can simply say "They couldn't
even build a functioning website for Obamacare, do you really trust them to completely overhaul our healthcare system?" People
with no/bad health insurance might take that chance, but people with solid/good health insurance will probably be risk averse.
Do you think people are going to fall for "If you like your doctor, you can keep them" a second time?
The Green New Deal will hurt in TX and PA, since there are a lot of oil industry workers there. And if you look at polling,
Climate Change is nowhere near most voters, especially moderates, top concern.
Welfare to illegal immigrants is extremely unpopular to everyone outside of the hard left.
I definitely hear those concerns but MFA will absolutely help more people than it hurts. Arguing against it for the sake of preserving
jobs is to me like arguing for the carriage industry during the advent of the automobile. With regards to doctors, the problem
with Obamacare was that it left the insurance industry intact, which is why people couldn't always keep their doctors. It's not
a choice if your insurance won't cover the doctor you want. MFA would allow you to see literally any doctor you wanted, no concerns
about "networks".
With regards to the GND, again you're arguing for the carriage makers while Model-T's are rolling off the line. Green energy
is already edging out coal as it becomes cheaper and easier to produce, the oil workers are living on borrowed time. And any GND
will have provisions for re-training displaced workers so they can land on their feet. My brother just became trained as a wind-turbine
mechanic, he's working on job sites literally across the country (so far he's been to Texas, Iowa and Minnesota). The jobs for
the displaced workers are there, and the GND will make sure they're properly prepared for them.
Also you're incorrect on American's concerns about climate change. Pew Research center says 67% of Americans believe the federal
government should be doing more to stop it from getting worse. And while of course you see some demographic divisions in the data
the trend is that number is growing, in fact they say 65% of moderate Republicans feel that way.
First of all, to all my original point, I'm arguing about how those policies hurt Bernie Sanders politically, not on their merits.
Bernie continually votes to fund the F-35 even though it's a trillion dollar piece of junk, because some of its parts are built
in VT.
On comparing MFA and the GND to the advent of the automobile, that's a terrible analogy since the government didn't shove the
automobile down our throats. The automobile became affordable and convenient, and people voluntarily purchased it.
For MFA, there is no evidence that there will be any cost control measures that would make it economically viable. Congress
has been kicking the can down the road on cost controls for Medicare and Obamacare for years, so why would we expect MFA to be
different?
For the GND, if renewables are so awesome and cost effective, why do we need a new multi-trillion dollar government initiative
to make people adopt them?
And as to climate change, where is that on people's list of concerns when polled? Yes, people may say we should do something
about it, but 1.) typically they don't want to have to sacrifice anything for it and 2.) If you look at polls that rank peoples
concerns in the world, climate change consistently ranks quite low. Heck, they couldn't even get WA state to adopt a modest carbon
tax when it was voted on, so what makes you think that it will catch on nationally?
There was quite a lot of corporate chicanery, aided and abetted by government, that helped promote the automobile, from auto and
rubber companies butying up trolley systems to auto companies paying off movie producers to make newsreels promoting buses over
trolleys. There are documentaries, books and even comic books on the subject.
Sanders is for increasing the carried interest tax rate for private equity firms. He wants to turn the U.S. into Venezuela. Socialism
... sooooooocialism.
Bernie's Wall Street tax proposals are nonsensical. They are supposedly going to raise a ton of revenue without substantially
disrupting the financial sector. One, or potentially both, of those things are likely to be false.
For every Venezeula there is a Denmark, a Germany, a Finland, a Japan. It's easy to point to (I know it's not PC to say) a corrupt
3rd world country and crow about how "socialism failed". And yet if you glance over towards Europe you see dozens of nations with
one form of socialist safety net or another, and they're spending *less* per capita on healthcare *and* getting *better* results
than we are.
I flipped on this issue specifically because of the numbers, not ideological reasons. I happily voted for Johnson in 16, and
in a perfect world I'd prefer government to stay small. But you can't deny that the healthcare system we're currently in is MUCH
worse than just about everyone else's in the developed world (I mean it's the internet, you can deny all you want but the facts
are what they are). I flipped because if we're spending more and getting less, it's literally *more* fiscally conservative and
efficient to switch to a MFA system. I'd love a completely free-market system, but there's fewer examples that I'm aware of of
that sort of system working well, and honestly I don't think it could be pulled off.
We in essence have a free market health care system. At least outside of Medicare and the VA. For a market to function efficiently,
it requires 2 key ingredients: the ability to compare prices and the ability to compare quality. Due to the disparity in medical
training between the medical community and your average Joe on the street, having those 2 key ingredients is impossible. So we
just have a very inefficient health care market, as any economics book would predict. Less corrupt nations understand how this
works and mitigate the problem with different solutions: full government control (England), government single-payer (Canada),
non-profit insurance system (Germany) and many others.
"... When he is pressed to give specifics on foreign policy, his answers range from vague to terrible , and when he does get pinned down he ends up sounding more and more hawkish . ..."
"... Buttigieg's lack of foreign policy substance and experience make him the perfect vessel that his advisers can fill with their own ideas. The former mayor rails against "old failed Washington," but his entire career has been aimed at becoming part of it, and to that end he fails to attack our government's many foreign policy failures. ..."
"... Buttigieg's weakness on foreign policy reflects the larger problem with his candidacy. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why he is running for president except his own overweening ambition, and there isn't any compelling reason why voters should prefer him to any of the other alternatives. ..."
"... The average American voter wouldn't recognize a coherent foreign policy if it showed up gift-wrapped on their doorstep. ..."
"... electability comes more from the intuitions of voters - at the margin - than actual policy formulations. Celebrity and stage presence mean a lot to people who regularly imbibe cable TV, Oprah, Game of Thrones and Super Bowl halftime shows ( all of which are intellectually indistinguishable from one another, I might add ). ..."
"... Apart from the irony of the NY Times asking questions about regime-change wars -- all of which the Times cheerleaded -- Buttigieg's near-silence on foreign policy isn't much different from Sanders' in 2016. ..."
"... Buttigieg is an empty vessel. He poses no threat to entrenched wealth in this country or to the neocon foreign policy establishment. He won't do anything to curb the excesses of American militarism. The only powerful group he offends is the religious right - a group deeply offended by his homosexuality. They won't want a gay couple in the White House. For the socially liberal wealthy who don't want their wealth and power threatened by Sanders or Warren, he is the perfect candidate ..."
Barndollar
notes that Pete Buttigieg avoids foreign policy substance all the time:
When the New York Times asked Democratic candidates about regime change wars and U.S. support
for coups, "Mr. Buttigieg did not answer this question." Ditto for all of the Times' questions
about Afghanistan, the war upon which Buttigieg's claims to foreign policy expertise hinge.
Buttigieg remains essentially a cipher on foreign policy, sensible words about the AUMF aside.
He sounds the right progressive notes but refuses to be pinned down on much of substance. It is
hard to imagine him diverging much from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has
wreaked so much havoc, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. When the New York Times asked Democratic
candidates about regime change wars and U.S. support for coups, "Mr. Buttigieg did not answer
this question." Ditto for all of the Times' questions about Afghanistan, the war upon which
Buttigieg's claims to foreign policy expertise hinge. Buttigieg remains essentially a cipher on
foreign policy, sensible words about the AUMF aside. He sounds the right progressive notes but
refuses to be pinned down on much of substance. It is hard to imagine him diverging much from
the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has wreaked so much havoc, in Afghanistan and
elsewhere.
Buttigieg's Buttigieg's
aversion to substance is not limited to foreign policy, and his rhetoric frequently tends
towards the platitudinous. He proudly tweeted out a recent statement he made at a town hall in
New Hampshire, "The shape of our democracy is the issue that affects every other issue." The real
talent that Buttigieg has is that he says nonsensical things like that with a straight face. He
can repeat the phrase "end endless war," but he never wants to say when or how exactly he is
going to end any wars. In that respect, he may be the Democratic candidate most like Trump. When
he is pressed to give specifics on foreign policy, his answers When he is pressed to give
specifics on foreign policy, his answers
He delivered one underwhelming speech on the subject last year, and
we still know little more about his foreign policy views today than we did then. His campaign
website section on foreign policy includes nothing except a copy of that same speech. It is
probably because they assume that he poses no threat to conventional foreign policy that he has
It is probably because they assume that he poses no threat to conventional foreign policy that he
has It is probably because they assume that he poses no threat to conventional foreign policy
that he has hundreds of
foreign policy professionals rushing to endorse him when he has no qualifications.
Buttigieg's lack of foreign policy substance and experience make him the perfect vessel that his
advisers can fill with their own ideas. The former mayor rails against "old failed Washington,"
but his entire career has been aimed at becoming part of it, and to that end he fails to attack
our government's many foreign policy failures.
Buttigieg's weakness on foreign policy reflects
the larger problem with his candidacy. There doesn't seem to be any particular reason why he is
running for president except his own overweening ambition, and there isn't any compelling reason
why voters should prefer him to any of the other alternatives.
The average American voter wouldn't recognize a coherent foreign policy if it showed up
gift-wrapped on their doorstep. This is, for all intents and purposes, a moot issue in terms
of the upcoming election.
Donald Trump never had a coherent foreign policy that anyone could
discern when he was a candidate, and look how that turned out. Some Americans are intensely
interested in foreign policy; most are not. Oh, they have opinions, alright.
But electability
comes more from the intuitions of voters - at the margin - than actual policy formulations.
Celebrity and stage presence mean a lot to people who regularly imbibe cable TV, Oprah, Game
of Thrones and Super Bowl halftime shows ( all of which are intellectually indistinguishable
from one another, I might add ).
Apart from the irony of the NY Times asking questions about regime-change wars -- all of
which the Times cheerleaded -- Buttigieg's near-silence on foreign policy isn't much
different from Sanders' in 2016.
Politicians believe the American public isn't as interested
in foreign policy as it is in domestic issues. Also, with domestic issues, politicians have
become experts in pushing wedge issues so as to manipulate their constituencies. But a more
probable reason Buttigieg doesn't talk about foreign policy is because, as mayor of a small
town, he never had to deal with it. This vacuum will mean that, as president, he will adopt
the Democratic Party's pro-war, anti-Russia, neocon belligerency. He will be an inexperienced
puppet controlled by the Clinton-Obama-neocon war agenda.
Buttigieg is an empty vessel. He poses no threat to entrenched wealth in this country or to the neocon
foreign policy establishment. He won't do anything to curb the excesses of American militarism. The only powerful group
he offends is the religious right - a group deeply offended by his homosexuality. They won't want a gay couple in the
White House. For the socially liberal wealthy who don't want their wealth and power threatened by Sanders or Warren, he
is the perfect candidate.
Last night at the Democratic debate no one immediately noticed, most especially the lame
media, how Buttigieg screwed the pooch with this bit of misinformed, unenlightened, wiseguy
condescension:
Buttigieg said, I am not looking forward to a scenario where it comes down to Donald
Trump, with his nostalgia for the social order of the 1950s, and Bernie Sanders with a
nostalgia for the revolutionary politics of the 1960s.
Okay, but you really stepped into it butthead! You belittled and probably alienated
millions of former revolutionary boomers in their 60s and 70's, who have justifed nostalgia
for protest activism and social justice movements and organizations, the Civil Rights
Movement, the Anti-War Movement, the United Farm Workers, and an era rich in creative
awareness that gave rise to prominent revolutionary figures like MLK and Malcolm X and others
together with musicians and artists who helped evolve the consciousness of humanity and
changed the world.
The first big question, especially for a southern Black crowd, might be how the civil
rights movement squares with Buttigieg's concerns about an era which saw Martin Luther
King, Jr.'s rise to political prominence, and his tragic assassination; an era that gave
prominence to the Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, and many, many more Black
leaders, whose work is still relevant today. These people, their work, and their movement
are undoubtedly part of the "revolutionary politics of the 1960s."
Or maybe Buttigieg is talking about the people fed up with the homo- and transphobic
policies of the times, who rose up, in 1966, at Compton's Cafeteria in San Francisco, and
at the Stonewall Inn, in 1969, in New York? Marsha P. Johnson and Sylvia Rivera, two of the
most notably lionized figures to come out of Stonewall and the ensuing years of LGBTQ
organizing in New York, even put the word "revolution" in the name of the organization they
started to house and care for LGBTQ youth, the Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries
(STAR).
Maybe Buttigieg is worried about other movements from the 1960s. It was the era that
gave us the Brown Berets, the Chicano movement, and an outburst of activism from migrant
farmworkers. The '60s saw the birth of the Native-led Red Power movement and the Indigenous
reclamation of Alcatraz Island. The bra-burning antics of the decade's feminists may be
misremembered, but it's indisputable that the 1960s gave us a powerful wave of new feminist
thought. Through it all, protests against the Vietnam War grabbed national attention. And
many of these movements had young people leading the way.
We must remember that the revolutionary politics of the '60s were, in many ways, a
response to the social order of the '50s. And just as Trump has pitched himself to America
great again in a specifically '50s way, we need to make space for the revolutionary
politics of the '60s to challenge the ways this nation has oppressed, and continues to
oppress, the people it's pledged to liberate.
Bernie Sanders witnessed one of the most powerful eras in American history and
participated in the struggle for civil rights. Buttigieg owes him gratitude, respect and owes
an apology to the generation of boomers who actively mobilized for achieving rights for the
oppressed at that time.
Buttigieg is a shallow, vacuous pompous pretender to the highest seat of power in the
wrong race at the wrong time getting schooled by an inspiring, authentic leader and his
legion of defenders.
The revolutionary spirit of the 60s has been awakened at a critical moment in history once
again and Bernie Sanders will lead it straight to the highest office in the land.
Bernie Sanders will defeat Donald Trump bringing with him a new generation of
revolutionary warriors ready to fight corruption, take on the pressing issues of this time
and the existential threat that looms ahead for all mankind.
It is no longer Trumptime. Trump was merely the catalyst for this moment to be seized. I
wrote this and believed it from the moment I joined this site, and I am convinced we are
embarking on what I envisioned then.
THE UNASSUMING, GENUINE BERNIE SANDERS WILL DEFEAT DONALD TRUMP AND THE MOMENT WILL BE
TRANSFORMATIVE, EXHILARATING AND HISTORICAL.
"... The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of lower
strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which is based
on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger is directed against
the neoliberal establishment. ..."
"... The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80% of the
population. ..."
"... The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment" the key
figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016). ..."
"... That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade. ..."
"... In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns into quality,"
or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses." ..."
I am old enough to remember when many very serious people ascribed the rise of Donald Trump to economic anxiety. The hypthesis
never fit the facts (his supporters had higher incomes on average than Clinton's) but it has become absurd. The level of self reported
economic anxiety is extraordinarily low
Yet now the Democratic party has an insurgent candidate candidate in the lead. I hasten to stress that I am not saying Sanders
supporters have much in common with Trump supporters (young vs old, strong hispanic support vs they hate Trump etc etc etc). But
both appeal to anger and advocate a radical break with business as usual. Both reject party establishments. Also Warren if a little
bit less so.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry. He remains unpopular in spite of an economy performing
very well (and perceived to be performing very well).
Whatever is going on in 2020, it sure isn't economic anxiety.
Yet there is clearly anger and desire for radical change.
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality. I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump,
but, then I don't watch Fox News.
Trump's 2016 angry supporters still support him *and* they are still angry.
Many Trump "angry supporters" in 2016 used to belong to "anybody but Hillary" class (and they included a noticeable percentage
of Bernie supporters, who felt betrayed by DNC) .
They are lost for Trump as he now in many aspects represents the "new Hillary" and the slogan "anybody but Trump" is growing
in popularity. Even among Republicans: Trump definitely already lost a large part of anti-war Republicans and independents. As
well as. most probably, a part of working class as he did very little for them outside of effects of military Keynesianism.
I suspect he also lost a part of military voters, those who supported Tulsi. They will never vote for Trump.
He also lost a part of "technocratic" voters resentful of the rule of financial oligarchy (anti-swampers), as his incompetence
is now an undisputable fact.
He also lost Ron Paul's libertarians, who voted for him in 2016.
How "Coronavirus recession", if any, might affect 2020 elections is difficult to say, but in any case this is an unfavorable
for Trump event.
EMichael , February 25, 2020 10:39 am
"I can't understand why the reaction of so many Americans to this would be to hate immigrants and vote for Trump, but, then
I don't watch Fox News."
Coming to you since 1965. It's just that immigrants are now added to blacks. Trump took 50 years of the Southern Strategy,
took the dogwhistles completely out of the closet and wore his racism right on his chest. Helped that he had over 50 years of
experience as a racist, it came naturally to him.
And he attracted a new rw base, those who were not satisfied with dog whistles and/or did not hear them.
likbez , February 25, 2020 12:19 pm
I don't pretend to understand it, but I think it probably has a lot to do with relative economic performance and increased
inequality.
It is actually very easy to understand: the middle class fared very poorly since 1991. See
https://www.cnbc.com/id/44962589 . Now "the chickens come home
to roost," so to speak.
The key promise of neoliberalism, which came to power in the USA in 1980 with the election of Reagan (aka "the Quiet Coup")
was that "the rising tide lifts all boats." -- the redistribution of the wealth up somehow will lift the standard of living of
lower strata of the population too. This was a false promise from the very beginning (like everything about neoliberalism, which
is based on lies and fake economics in any case). So anger accumulated and now became the key factor in elections. This anger
is directed against the neoliberal establishment.
The anger toward immigrants is, in fact, a displaced and projected anger against the elimination of meaningful and well-paid
jobs and replacing them with McJobs, the process that was the key factor in lowering the standard of living of the bottom 80%
of the population.
The other part of this anger is directed toward the USA financial oligarchy (personified by such passionately hated figures
as Lloyd "we are doing God's" Blankfein, private equity sharks, and figures like Wexner/Epstein) and "political establishment"
the key figures of which many people would like to see hanging from street lamp posts (remember "Lock her up" movement in 2016).
Resentment against spending huge amounts of money for wars for sustaining and enlarging the global USA-centered neoliberal
empire is another factor. In this sense, impoverishment and shrinking of the middle class in the USA is similar to the same impoverishment
during the last days of the British colonial empire.
That's why the neoliberal establishment was forced to use to dirty tricks like Russiagate to patch the cracks in the neoliberal
façade.
In Marxist terms, the USA entered the period called the "revolutionary situation" when the ruling neoliberal elite couldn't
govern "as usual" and "the deplorable" do not want to live "as usual". The situation when according to Hegel, "quantity turns
into quality," or as Marx said "ideas become a material force when they grip the mind of the masses."
In 2016 that resulted in the election of Trump.
Add to this the fact that the neoliberal establishment (represented by both parties) now is clearly anti-social (the fact
that a private equity shark Romney was a presidential candidate and then was elected as senator tells a lot about the level of
degradation) and is unwilling to solve burning problems with medical insurance, minimal wage and other "the New Deal" elements
of social infrastructure.
Democratic Party platform now is to the right of Eisenhower republicans.
That dooms the party candidates like CIA-democrat Major Pete, or "the senator from the credit card companies" Biden,
and create an opening for political figures like Sanders (which are passionately hated by DNC)
Following shocking reports from TheNew York Times and The Washington Post that Moscow is simultaneously
working to both re-elect Donald Trump and ensure the nomination of Vermont Senator Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary race, NNC has obtained further information
confirming that nearly all candidates currently running for president are in fact covert agents
of the Russian government.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the lone candidate not literally conducting
espionage on behalf of the Russian government is Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South
Bend, Indiana.
"Intelligence has revealed that Mr. Buttigieg is at this time the only candidate who we can
count on not to place our nation's interests square in the hands of Vladimir Putin," an
anonymous source in the Central Intelligence Agency told NNC on Saturday.
"In fact Mr. Buttigieg is the only candidate running with the skill, the experience and the
multilingual relatability needed to bridge our nation's deep divisions and bring Americans
together in this time of uncontrolled hostility," the CIA source continued.
"Because in truth, the unity of our togetherness is in the freedom of our democracy," added
the source. "The long and winding road to the American flag was built upon the steps of our
founding fathers. You don't have to be a big shot Washington insider to see that the problems
our nation faces are tearing us apart at our own peril with radical divisive rhetoric saying
you need to burn down the establishment and voice a concrete foreign policy position. And
that's why I for one believe we don't have to choose between revolution and the status quo: we
can come together and find solutions that help the working class and
billionaires."
Experts say these new revelations on Russian election interference should consume one
hundred percent of all news coverage for the entirety of 2020, and that Democrats should
definitely spend all their time from now until November focusing solely on President Trump's
suspicious ties to the Russian government.
"I can't think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong if Democrats focused
exclusively on the possibility that the president conspired with Vladimir Putin in the lead-up
to the election in November," said Les Overton of the influential think tank Americans for an
American America. "If Democrats want to prevent another four years of Trump they should hit him
where they know it hurts: nonstop 24/7 Russia conspiracy theories. That's what Americans really
care about."
Asked if it's possible that undue emphasis on Russian collusion could prove a fruitless
endeavor given Trump's soaring approval rating after impeachment resulted in his acquittal and
the Mueller report failed to indict a single American for conspiring with the Russian
government, Overton disagreed and said this time will be "like, totally different."
"Democrats should definitely invest all of their mental and emotional energy in this
Trump-Russia scandal, because this time it's a sure thing," Overton said. "Put all your eggs in
this basket and get your hopes up very, very high. The big BOOM is coming any minute now, I
promise."
Overton then departed with an envelope full of cash which he said was his life savings,
reportedly to invest in lottery tickets.
"... This is the real meaning behind the rise of Pete Buttigieg to second place among caucus voters in Iowa (though narrowly leading there in the number of pledged delegates) and in New Hampshire, and of the dramatic decline of Senator Elizabeth Warren in both U.S. states. ..."
"... Klobuchar is 20 years younger than Warren, far more controlled in public and not prone to Warren's hysteria. ..."
"... In fact, in so far as Pete Buttigieg is typical of anything, it is not the Democratic Party, the American Midwest, the state of Indiana or the modest mini-city of South Bend he has so manifestly failed to run impressively. ..."
"... Instead, Buttigieg is the latest classic example of what in these columns a year ago (March 29, 2019) I described as the phenomenon of the "Boy Toys" apparently cloned by the CIA as supposedly harmless puppets to (pretend to) run the West. ..."
"Yesterday, upon a stair
"I met a man who wasn't there
"He wasn't there again today
"I wish, I wish he'd go away."
-Hughes Mearns
This year, the Democratic Party caucus-goers of Midwest, prosperous Iowa and the voters of
hard-scrabble, post-industrial, impoverished Granite State New Hampshire 1,342 miles (2,160
kilometers) away agreed on a historic decision:
They put the fantasy of a wonderful, First-Ever Lady President of the United States behind
them and significantly tilted towards embracing a First-Ever, Openly Gay President instead.
This is the real meaning behind the rise of Pete Buttigieg to second place among caucus
voters in Iowa (though narrowly leading there in the number of pledged delegates) and in New
Hampshire, and of the dramatic decline of Senator Elizabeth Warren in both U.S. states.
Warren tried out different suits of political clothes and public policies through her
endlessly promoted but always hollow and insubstantial campaign. None of them fitted
convincingly on her.
Warren tried to be the candidate of the fake populist, fraudulent left championing Those In
Need –a familiar trope.
She did not realize that Senator Bernie Sanders – significantly always a flinty
Independent outside the Democratic Party mainstream – retained his rock-solid hold on his
supporters from 2016.
By the time Warren – not at all the brightest of political light bulbs –
realized her crucial mistake and tried to cut back to the Democrats' so-called moderate center
(the terms are actually meaningless, but universally swallowed by gullible Americans), it was
too late.
In reality, there is a much stronger and far more plausible mainstream lady Democratic
potential candidate.
Senator Amy Klobuchar comes from Minnesota and is far more a daughter of the vast American
Heartland than Warren, who grew up in Ohio, but fled it to Massachusetts and the fake
intellectual distinction of Harvard as quickly as she could.
Klobuchar is 20 years younger than Warren, far more controlled in public and not prone to
Warren's hysteria.
In terms of policy there is in reality little to differentiate them. But Klobuchar knows how
to superficially talk to Heartland Americans without convincing them she regards them as dumb
little poodle dogs –an absolutely vital requirement for any presidential contender in the
21st century United States. Warren, like Hillary Clinton before her, could never master that
vital skill.
However, as the contest outcomes in radically contrasting Iowa and New Hampshire show,
instead of Klobuchar's genuinely solid record after 12 years in the United States Senate,
Democratic voters are tilting towards Pete Buttigieg: a man who only been mayor of tiny
(100,000 population) South Bend, Indiana – and a far from distinguished mayor at
that.
Far from being Mr. Clean, Buttigieg in fact has a mysterious background in U.S. Naval
Intelligence and an astonishing degree of public support from scores of senior officials
in the
Secret State .
In fact Buttigieg has never been what he appears to be. He was accepted to Pembroke College
at Oxford University in England on a Rhodes scholarship – an elite path previously
followed by President Bill Clinton, Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott and warmongering
neocon columnist the late Charles Krauthammer among others.
He went to Harvard. He has literally scores of endorsements from extraordinarily high level
officials in the CIA and throughout the U.S. intelligence community on his web site.
He was a successful employed consultant at McKinsey for three years. His career trajectory
closely parallels that of President Emmanuel Macron of France, the supposedly super-smart,
highly sheltered and arrogant little policy wonk always ready to ax the jobs and lives of
hundreds of thousands of ordinary families on the sacred altar of "efficiency."
Buttigieg served in the U.S. Navy Reserve in intelligence. He had a seven month deployment
in Afghanistan in 2014 for which he was awarded the Joint Service Commendation Medal. Yet he
never rose beyond the level of lieutenant – the bottom rank of officers. And he has all
these Deep State endorsements.
In fact, in so far as Pete Buttigieg is typical of anything, it is not the Democratic Party,
the American Midwest, the state of Indiana or the modest mini-city of South Bend he has so
manifestly failed to run impressively.
Instead, Buttigieg is the latest classic example of what in these columns a year ago (March
29, 2019) I described as the phenomenon of the "Boy Toys" apparently cloned by the CIA as
supposedly harmless puppets to (pretend to) run the West.
As I wrote at the time, there is an astonishing element of similarity to all these figures.
They are all in their forties or late 30s (Buttigieg is 38). They could all pass as teenagers.
They all project an attempted air of wholesomeness and earnest idealism which their records
reveal as utterly fraudulent. And none of them has any record of distinction in either domestic
or international affairs.
"Little Pete" Buttigieg fits this profile eerily: Like the rest of them, he was plucked from
nowhere on the basis of nothing more profound than his willingness to swallow the same old
internationalist, liberal, free trade party line to cover endless aggressions, fostered coups,
civil wars and other crimes against humanity.
Buttigieg, like his fellow Boy Toys is also a perfect candidate to be, in the wonderful
words with which Alice Roosevelt Longworth dismissed 1948 U.S. presidential candidate Tom
Dewey, the little toy man on top of a giant wedding cake.
The Mighty Mayor of South Bend is also a convincing candidate to be the Last Ever President
of the United States: For he is the natural successor to Romulus Augustulanus, the ludicrous
teenage last legal emperor of Rome (for less than a year) in 475-6 AD.
Rhodes Scholar. Afghan vet. Mayor. An impressive resume, to be sure, but to have made the
fantastic leap from local politics to the doorstep of the Oval Office – at the age of
just 38 – seems altogether impossible without some serious behind-the-scenes
connections.
Let's just cut right to the chase with a couple questions that the media has glaringly
failed to consider about the top-polling Democratic presidential candidate. First, the most
obvious one. How on earth does a young Midwestern mayor, regardless of his polished resume,
jump to the front of the serving line, past hundreds of veteran politicians who have quietly
nurtured presidential ambitions inside of the Beltway their entire lives?
As The Economist emphatically stated this week, "Mr Buttigieg is ridiculously young to be
doing so well."
Second, if the mayor of South Bend, Indiana (pop. 101,166) is now in serious contention to
challenge Donald Trump in November, what exactly does that say about the depth of the
Democratic bench, loaded as it is with Senators, House members, Governors and various state
officials with far more political experience and acumen?
Today, LGBTQ+ youth in America aren't just grappling with a crisis of belonging in their
communities, many are left without a home or a place to sleep. I am so proud of @PeteButtigieg 's
agenda for housing justice and what it means for vulnerable youth. https://t.co/btn2zKDrXd
While the Oval Office has seen its share of pretenders, and even actors, the great majority
of those men who made it to the pinnacle of power have spent at least some time in high
political office before contemplating a presidential run. Incidentally, it is on this
particular point, political experience, which could make a Trump-Buttigieg debate a very
interesting spectacle. Although Buttigieg has limited political experience, Trump had none
before he entered the White House, although certainly proving his abilities once in office.
For Pete's sake!
Born on January 19, 1982, Buttigieg graduated valedictorian from St. Joseph High School in
2000. That same year he won a JFK 'Profiles in Courage'
essay contest on the subject of none other than Bernie Sanders, the democratic socialist
the incredibly rising mayor is competing against for the November nod. "Above all, I commend
Bernie Sanders for giving me an answer to those who say American young people see politics as a
cesspool of corruption, beyond redemption," Buttigieg wrote. His trip to Washington D.C. to
collect his prize included a meeting
with members of the Kennedy clan, an honor that must have left a deep impression on the 18 year
old.
Upon graduation from Harvard University, Buttigieg did a stint (2007-2010) at the Chicago
office of McKinsey & Co, the discreet U.S. management consulting firm. During his time
there, the young upstart took a trip to perhaps the most unlikely destinations in the world,
Somaliland, a self-proclaimed independent state in Africa that is struggling for international
recognition to this day. In other words, not a trip to Disneyland.
Just before embarking on his African adventure (Summer of 2008), Buttigieg was taken on as a
fellow with the Truman National Security Project, a neoliberal think tank that has been
described as "a
powerful and exclusive club for the best and brightest young progressives in the country."
Among its esteemed alumni is none other than Madeleine Albright, chief architect of NATO's
obliteration of Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, the founder of the Truman Project, Rachel Kleinfeld,
deserves some consideration.
Upon graduating from Oxford, Kleinfeld took up employment with Booz Allen Hamilton, the
private contractor that carried out a long list of services for the military. It has also been
described as "the world's most profitable spy organization." The head of the company at the
time was none other than James Woolsey, the neoconservative former CIA director who has
advocated
for a fiercely interventionist U.S. foreign policy, notably the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Back to Somaliland. In addition to Buttigieg's affiliation with the Truman Center, where he
now sits on the advisory board, his Somalian 'vacation' managed to garner special attention in
The New York Times, suggesting this was much more than your ordinary getaway.
"Somaliland is pursuing investment and support from China and Gulf countries," Buttigieg
wrote in the Times piece, co-authored by Nathaniel Myers, who also went along for the
joyride. "Such support might be enough to ensure Somaliland's survival and eventual growth, but
it will crowd out America's chance to win the gratitude of a potentially valuable ally in a
very troubled area."
Possibly more than just incidentally, Myers, a Harvard buddy of Buttigieg, now serves as
Senior Transition Advisor at USAID – Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), which works
to
destabilize governments deemed unfavorable to U.S. interests.
Just over a year later, in September 2009, Buttigieg, and despite his participation in
anti-war rallies while at Harvard, signed up for the U.S. Navy Reserve. Due to his particular
"pedigree,"
writes Stars and Stripe magazine, he was sworn in as an ensign in naval intelligence
without any prior preparation, which is not the traditional route for enlistees. In 2014, he
was deployed to Afghanistan, which required Buttigieg to take a seven-month leave of absence
from his mayoral duties in South Bend. Here is where the political upstart's career begins to
look a little sketchy.
According to The Grayzone, Buttigieg "spent his six months in Afghanistan in 2014 with a
little-known unit that operated under the watch of the Drug Enforcement Administration. It was
the Afghanistan Threat Finance Cell (ATFC), according to his appointment papers."
What exactly did Special Officer Pete Buttigieg do in this unit, which was founded by none
other than the future CIA chief General David Patreaus, who at the time was the head of U.S.
Central Command? Well, that's hard to say because the job description that appears in his
discharge
papers is left conveniently blank. This, and the fact that the ATFC has direct links to
U.S. intelligence has fueled rumors with regards to who or what was responsible for placing the
mayor of South Bend, Indiana on the political fast lane.
But those sorts of connections alone cannot explain Buttigieg's meteoric rise in Washington,
D.C., especially when the young upstart spent the majority of his time in South Bend. No, Pete
Buttigieg would require boatloads of cash to earn such fame in such a short time. And as it
turns out, the money has been pouring into his coffers from some of the wealthiest families in
the country.
The spook's choice: Coup plotters and CIA agents fill Mayor Pete's list of national
security endorsers @Cancel_Sam looks at Buttigieg's new
roster of endorsements from high-ranking spies, regime-change architects, and global
financiers https://t.co/RBQTnDKu7g
According to federal election data, forty billionaires and their spouses have donated to
Pete Buttigieg's presidential campaign, putting his campaign war chest at around $52 million,
the most collected among all the Democratic candidates. An analysis of the contributions shows
that the majority of the billionaire donators came from the financial, media and technology
sectors.
In something that should surprise no one, Pete Buttigieg's Monday fundraiser in San
Francisco is sold out at the upper-most level ($2,800), which doesn't happen too often.
pic.twitter.com/6YFcbn2yfd
Of particular interest, however, is how much the tech titans of Silicon Valley have lavished
the democratic frontrunner with attention as well as infusions of hard cash. In December, for
example, Rex Reed, co-founder of Netflix, helped organize a fundraising dinner at a wine cellar
in Palo Alto, California, which gave Buttigieg's Democratic opponents a golden opportunity to
expose his billionaire connections.
"Billionaires in wine caves should not pick the next president of the United States,"
Elizabeth Warren told Buttigieg in a December debate.
Buttigieg responded that he was "literally the only person on this stage who is not a
millionaire or a billionaire," and that therefore Warren had failed the "purity test."
I find it "Ironic" that suddenly Wine Caves Are The Hot Topic On All News #WineCaves
The California winemakers who hosted a dinner at a "wine cave" for [D] Con Party
presidential hopeful Pete Buttigieg are defending the fundraising event https://t.co/VjI26zj41a
It's not just billionaires, however, who are cracking open their wallets for the Indiana
native. The list includes more than 200 foreign policy and intelligence officials, including
Anthony Lake, national security adviser for President Clinton, former National Security Council
spokesman Ned Price, and former deputy CIA director David Cohen, among many others. Although
such support from the foreign policy and intelligence community doesn't prove cause and effect,
it has helped spawn a number of
online conspiracy theories that Buttigieg is something of a Manchurian candidate, propped
up by a deep state desperate to beat the swamp drainer Donald J. Trump.
Those ideas were brought to a boil during the Iowa caucus when the aptly named app Shadow,
designed to perform the simple task of reporting the polling results in a timely and efficient
manner, fizzled out just as Bernie Sanders had taken a commanding lead over Buttigieg. Would it
come as any surprise that Shadow Inc. has a very shadowy history?
"Shadow Inc. was picked in secret by the Iowa Democratic Party after its leaders consulted
with the Democratic National Committee on vetting vendors and security protocols for developing
a phone app used to gather and tabulate the caucus results," AP reported . "Shadow Inc. was launched
by ACRONYM, a nonprofit corporation founded in 2017 by Tara McGowan, a political strategist who
runs companies aimed at promoting Democratic candidates and priorities."
McGowan is married to none other than Michael Halle, a senior strategist for Pete
Buttigieg's presidential campaign, which records show has also paid Shadow Inc. $42,500 for the
use of software.
And people wonder why there are so many 'conspiracy theorists' running around these
days.
In any case, the glitch led to many days of debate as to who really won the Midwestern
state, a debate that continues today. Yet despite that state of mass confusion, Buttigieg
didn't miss an opportunity to seize victory from the claws of (possible) defeat,
announcing just hours after the technological breakdown that he had been "victorious" in
Iowa. Meanwhile, Sanders' supporters saw it as yet another brazen move by the DNC to sideline
the democratic socialist.
So how does one explain the incredible string of political success for the young star of the
Democratic Party? Is he really so politically talented and smart that there was no choice but
to let him move to the front of the pack? That seems hard to believe since his speeches come
off as hollow and scripted, a rhetorical trick that many politicians with far more experience
have perfected. And how about all those billionaires, former state officials and people from
the national security apparatus who have come forward to support him? A case of billionaire
grassroots democracy in action, or just more good luck for the South Bend native?
As it stands, Pete Buttigieg remains a great mystery, a proverbial dark horse on the U.S.
political scene. While there can be no question that he has a long future in American politics,
it is too early to tell if that will be a good thing for the American people. There is still a
lot of unpacking to do on the life and times of the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana.
A prominent health care activist called out South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg 's "Medicare for All who
want it" plan, arguing it merely preserves the status quo for the health care industry.
"It preserves the status quo to a large extent. It keeps the insurance industry fully in
charge of our health care system, and that is why we're having this debate in the first place,"
Wendell Potter, a former health care executive who now serves as president of Medicare for All
Now, said on Hill.TV's "Rising" Thursday.
"Pete's plan would thrill them because it lets them keep doing the things that they've been
doing and making profits off of all of us," he added of the former South Bend, Ind. mayor's
plan.
Health care has emerged as one of the chief fissures in the Democratic primary field, with
the candidates battling over how far to expand coverage for Americans.
Sen. Bernie Sanders
(I-Vt.), the leading progressive in the field, has proposed a "Medicare for All" plan that
would scrap private insurance and introduce a single-payer system.
Centrists like Buttigieg have instead introduced plans to expand the Affordable Care Act and
include a Medicare option for those who want it.
Moderates have slammed Sanders' plan as too expensive, though Sanders has said his proposal
would offset costs already besetting families, such as high premiums.
- His time at McKinsey was focused on "economic development" in Iraq/Afghanistan
- His own campaign materials advertise the time he has spent at "black sites" in Iraq
- His milquetoast policies are a perfect red herring for awful deep state policies
- Clearly is in possession of CIA-grade brainwashing tech ala-Men in Black. There is no other
plausible explanation for the recent "Mayor Pete" dance.
These are my thoughts. Discuss.
Finale Inventory / Eng huHG50 Mayor Pete is just a guy from a wealthy white family
that wants to stroke his own ego by running for president. his policy is to keep the status
quo and ramble on about how we need to come together to do nothing. No CIA/Deep state
conspiracy, just incompetence.
Finale Inventory / Eng huHG50 Pete isn't going to win the Mid West. I live in
mid west and grew up here. Plenty of homophobic people in rural areas. His plan is to
maintain status quo just like Hillary which is why she lost to Trump. In primary, Bernie
Sanders won pretty much every rural part of the state over Hillary and beat her in
Michigan overall. Bernie is our best shot at beating Trump. He pushes for change but is
more honest than Trump, people here will love that he wants to help the working
class.
Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is a rising star
in the Democratic Party. A mere year ago, few could have picked him out of a police lineup. Now he's the
presumptive front-runner of the centrist faction of the party and – for the moment, at least – the most likely
person for "Stop Bernie" forces to coalesce around.
But few know much about him, if anything. His personal biography seems to revolve
around two data points. First, that he's a gay Christian. Second, that he's a former Navy intelligence officer.
The latter of the two has not had any significant scrutiny. When "Mayor Pete's"
military record is subjected to even the slightest bit of observation, however, some disturbing facts and damning
questions begin to leap out. The question at the bottom continues to be: Who is Pete Buttigieg?
Mayor Pete likes to talk a lot about his deployment to Afghanistan (more on that
later), but he also spent some time in Iraq when he was working for McKinsey and Company as an energy, retail,
economic development, and logistics consultant. He makes a passing reference to having been in a "safe house in
Iraq" in 2007, in his memoir Shortest Way Home. Indeed, Buttigieg spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan while he
was working with McKinsey and Company. This time period (2007-2010) also overlaps with his time as a Naval
intelligence officer (2009-2017).
McKinsey isn't just any global management consulting firm. They have a contract
with the Department of Defense as part of a broader Task Force on Business and Stability Operations. This project
was criticized by Minnesota Congresswoman Betty McCollum in 2011, as an inappropriate use of military resources.
Why, after all, is the military being used to create an attractive investment and growth environment for American
companies? One of the tasks carried out by the task force was to help Kate Spade source raw materials for her
handbags.
In 2009, McKinsey was given an $18.6 million contract that expanded their work from
Afghanistan into Iraq.
Pete refuses to answer questions about what he was doing with McKinsey during this
period, citing a non-disclosure agreement that's over 10 years old. What we do know, however, is that Buttigieg
was stationed in Herat Province for part of his resumé-building tour of duty, where McKinsey was also very active.
Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of dots to connect here, but the dots we have are
worth noticing. Just like it's worth noticing that Buttigieg found time to volunteer for Barack Obama's 2008
presidential campaign, Pat Bauer's Indiana gubernatorial campaign, and enlist in the United States Navy – all
while he was still working at his high-powered consulting gig with McKinsey. He finally left McKinsey in 2010,
when he launched his losing bid for Indiana State Treasurer.
Pete Buttigieg: Navy Intelligence Officer
How
exactly did Mayor Pete end up in the Navy? It's interesting for a man who touts his service so readily, that he's
reticent to discuss it in any detail. This is no doubt related to the classified nature of his work, but it's
probably also related to how he ended up in the Navy in the first place.
The Navy Reserve's
direct commission officer program
allows ambitious young professionals to pad their resumé with military
service (usually in intelligence and public affairs) without having to go through tedious processes like basic
training or officer candidate school. Indeed, the program has men like Buttigieg in mind: Those who want to serve,
but not so badly that they're going to put their civilian careers at risk to do so.
A highly competitive program, it receives thousands of applicants every year,
accepting around a quarter of them.
This program has become de rigueur for a certain type of politically inclined
social climber. Indeed, several senior members of the Trump Administration have used this program to add military
service to their resumés. Sean Spicer, Reince Pribus and Veterans Affairs Secretary Robert Wilkie are just three
within the Administration who have benefitted from this program. It's also popular with the rich and politically
connected: George P. Bush, Hunter Biden, and Jimmy Pannetta are all alums.
The alums from this program form a tight-knit network within the government,
including at the CIA, with many officers having served at Guantanamo. Buttigieg's former commander was once the
chief linguist at Gitmo, according to his
LinkedIn page
.
Buttigieg likes to brag about his 119 trips outside the wire, but what was he
actually doing on those missions? It's difficult to say, especially when his
DD-214 was left blank
.
What we do know is that Buttigieg was assigned to the Afghan Threat Finance Cell,
whose ostensible purpose is combating the drug trade that exploded there after the American invasion in 2001.
According to Buttigieg, while there he worked closely with
every civilian intelligence alphabet agency
.
There are other strange bullet points on Buttigieg's CV. Like the time he stopped
off in Somaliland, a
de facto
independent state from Somalia, and spent 24 hours interviewing government
officials in 2008, before he was in the Navy. This escapade received a glowing, first-person report in the
New York Times
that reads more like a carefully crafted press release than real journalism or op-ed.
One doesn't simply just hop over to Somaliland on a whim. It's a difficult place to
get to, and once you get there, there's nothing going on. But Buttigieg made it in and was able to liaise with top
government officials who just happened to be offering up their main port to AFRICOM, a boon that would certainly
benefit the intelligence community Buttigieg later became cozy with.
Pete Buttigieg: Presidential Candidate
Buttigieg's
endorsements likewise raise questions. Why, for example, does a who's who of spooks and coup plotters want the
mayor of a small Indiana city to be the leader of the free world?
Former CIA Deputy Director David S. Cohen
is a big-time backer of Mayor Pete. Known as "the sanctions guru,"
he crafted the sanctions the Obama Administration levied on Iran, North Korea and Russia. Cohen continues to
appear before think tanks encouraging intervention in
Venezuela
. Other spook endorsements come from
Charlie Gilbert
, former deputy director of the CIA's
National Clandestine Service
, John Bair, former chief of staff of the CIA's Middle East Task Force, and
Dennis Bowden
, who spent 26 years in vaguely defined "executive leadership positions" in the CIA among other
CIA bigwigs.
Robert Stasio
, former chief of operations at the NSA Cyber Center,
Robin Walker
, former deputy intelligence officer of the Director of National Intelligence and
William Wechsler
, former deputy assistant secretary for special ops at the Department of Defense are three
spook backers of Mayor Pete outside of the CIA.
Why Mayor Pete? Because much like the spook community's previous favorite,
President Barack Obama
(whose partisans continue rear guard action against the Trump Administration through
the intel community), Pete is an empty slate with a thin resume and no convictions. His electoral appeal is mostly
an imagined yearning of middle America for a gay Christian president, a bizarre fever dream of the media class.
For what it's worth, Pete's backers, be they spooks or not, do not seem to be
taking "no" for an answer. Signs point toward the recent electoral debacle in Iowa as not the shambling disaster
of an incompetent Democratic Party, but as a naked power grab.
For anyone unaware, the results of the Iowa caucuses took the better part of a week
to resolve, thanks to technical difficulties stemming from an app used to tabulate and track voting.
Indeed, the debacle surrounding Shadow (the name of the app used to count and track
votes during the Iowa caucuses) has all the marks of a psyop. Rather than fudging the vote numbers (which there is
evidence for at the esoteric state delegate equivalent level
, where delegates are actually decided), perhaps
the goal was simply to allow Buttigieg to declare victory, reap the media whirlwind that results from winning the
Iowa caucuses and prevent his chief rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, from doing the same.
Buttigieg's campaign was invested in Shadow
to the tune of $42,500. Sadly for his campaign, New Hampshire's
elections are more straightforward, with hacking protections firmly in place and thus, much harder to steal.
It's not necessary for Mayor Pete to be a card-carrying CIA agent or a registered
asset with a handler straight out of a spy novel. It's simply sufficient for him to traffic in the same circles,
share the same values and be on board with the program.
You don't have to be a spook to do a spook's job. For those who spend enough time
in that world, it simply
becomes a matter of habit
.
Looking for all of your news in one place? Try
Whatfinger
,
your one-stop aggregator of news, opinion and everything else.
2 Responses to "Deep State Mayor Pete: Could Former Naval Intelligence Officer Pete Buttigieg
Be a CIA Asset?"
Rosemary
Friday, February 14, 2020 at 12:32 PM
Obama: Unknown on the national stage, one term senator who did nothing, Harvard Grad (?) smooth talker,
periods of disappearance from the country, birth place questionable, percieved as gay, fake parental parents,
maybe CIA etc
Mayor Pete: Unknown on national stage, no experience other than failed Mayor of city, maybe CIA, gay,
Harvard Grad, Rhodes Scholar, father known communist, Pete praised socialism in essay in high school (learned
by father ?) and awarded prize by Carolyn Kennedy, smooth talker, etc. Who is pushing and grooming these ppl to
run for office as DEMOCRATS?
This research raises a ton of questions. The motivations of those would commit time and resources to this
certainly need examination. I regard it as public knowledge that roughly 20 democrats elected to Congress in
the last round were former CIA members. What's up with that?
The more we learn about the CIA, the more we learn that they violated their mandate to stick to work outside
the country, a very very long time ago. So, you have a shadowy organization with privileged secrecy planting
journalists, producing all manner of misinformation and dysinformation, running sting operations, killing
people at will with no repercussions, compiling huge dossiers on individual Americans rivaling the collection
held by the FBI.
It makes you wonder. What is their goal? What is the desired end state which they wish to acheive? I don't
know, but like so many others, I don't trust them. Born "extra-constitutional" and that way they have stayed.
So, along comes this weirdo liberal who is articulate but feels phoney. Now comes the suggestion he is a CIA
asset. Problem is that once you slap that label on, everything gets called into question, including his bio.
Will he turn out to be another liar like Blumenthal? Will he turn out to be another exaggerating phoney like
John Kerry? That's the funny thing about misinformation and dysinformation. When they are walking down the
street and bump into Mr. Truth,there could be a problem or two for Mr. Buttigieg.
The Deep State has gone all-in on its preferred candidate to replace Donald Trump in 2020:
South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg. If you're thinking that Buttigieg is just another
"flash in the pan," flavor-of-the-month frontrunner like John Edwards or Howard Dean of years
past well, you're probably right.
But until Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren cut his throat, "Mayor Pete" is now the
ostensible front-runner among the Democrats, having raised $7 million in Deep State
contributions during the first quarter of 2019.
Here's a conundrum: If Democrats are truly concerned that interference in our elections by
shady, corrupt Russian crime lords is the most serious problem America faces, then they should
be worried about Pete Buttigieg. Very worried.
Who is Pete Buttigieg and why does the Deep State love him so much? He has a perfect resume:
Rhodes scholar, Navy reservist, youngest mayor ever elected in South Bend, Indiana. No
scandals. Buttigieg is like a blank-slate CIA operative who appeared out of nowhere like Barack
Obama. But he's twice as gay! Democrats view Buttigieg as a two-for-one special: He's got all
the wacky socialist policies, but his personal lifestyle choice makes him King of all
Democrats.
"Oh, look! Mayor Pete has a 'husband!' That's so cute!"
They also think that because Buttigieg is a protected minority, it's as if he's somehow
criticism-proof. He has a built-in victimhood status, so no one would dare commit a
thought-crime against the guy by criticizing his policies.
Um Democrats have you heard of this guy who's running for reelection? Donald Trump? His
mouth has no "off" switch when it comes to verbal improprieties. That's why so many Americans
love President Trump, so don't think that Buttigieg's victimhood status is going to get him a
free pass on the debate stage.
The mainstream media – which is an integral part of the Deep State – all
received their Buttigieg talking points on the same day. This was hilarious to watch, because
no one had ever heard of the guy before that day. It was like watching Wolf Blitzer refer to
"Barack Osama bin uh Obama" all over again.
Watching news anchors stumble over "Butta Butta uh " over and over again was a real treat. A
couple of reporters who dashed in too quickly called him "Butt-gouge" and "Butt-tag" –
two unfortunate mispronunciations, given Mayor Pete's proclivities.
Anyway, who is this guy? How does a complete no-name like this come out of the woodwork and
have Joe Scarborough of MSNBC declaring him to be the most electrifying candidate he's seen
since Barack Obama?
Answer: Total Deep State.
You really have to do some digging to figure out the true story behind Buttigieg. One clue
is in Buttigieg's official bio:
"Pete worked for McKinsey & Company, a top consulting firm, where he was responsible for
advising senior business and government leaders on major decisions related to economic
development, energy policy, strategic business initiatives, and logistics. His work took him
around the country and the world "
The staff at McKinsey and Company reads like a veritable who's-who of the CIA Deep State
globalist elites. Past "executives" at McKinsey and Company have included such globalist
masters of the universe as Cheryl Sandberg of Facebook, Susan "Benghazi was caused by a YouTube
video" Rice and that vapid, airheaded child of privilege Chelsea Clinton.
Pete Buttigieg's former employer McKinsey and Company has a ton of ties to corrupt Russian
oligarchs, Russian crime lords, Russian banks and Russian energy companies. They developed the
"business strategy" of VEB Bank in Russia, a corrupt banking cartel that's under sanction by
the Trump administration and the State Department.
Numerous McKinsey executives have left the company and gone to work directly as lobbyists
for corrupt Russian companies that are under US sanction. We wouldn't be surprised to learn
that McKinsey was involved in Crooked Hillary's deal to sell America's nuclear reserves to
Uranium One in Russia.
McKinsey and Company has also worked on image consulting and helping to prop up Victor
Yanukovych. If that name sounds vaguely familiar, Yanukovych is the corrupt former pro-Russian
president of Ukraine – you know, the one who paid Paul Manafort under the table and ended
up getting him sent to prison?
The Kremlin absolutely loves Pete Buttigieg. He's made their business interests a lot
of money. That's where "Mayor Pete" really came from and who he really is. If you're really
concerned about Russian meddling in America's elections, keep an eye on Sneaky Pete. He's their
preferred candidate.
Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow $42,500 for "software rights and subscriptions." They
had no role in the app used by the Iowa Democratic Party.
The presidential campaigns for former Vice President Joe Biden and U.S. Sen. Kirsten
Gillibrand, who has since dropped out of the race, also reported paying Shadow for services
in 2019.
..."The app that 'failed' in Iowa last night was developed by a software company called
Shadow," one such tweet said .
"Shadow was paid by Pete Buttigieg campaign last summer. Pete Buttigieg has now claimed victory
before any precincts have reported. What's that about election interference?"
The Iowa
Democratic Party failed to announce the winner of the state's Feb. 3 Democratic caucus thanks
to
what it called a "coding issue" in an app it planned to use to tabulate results, the New
York Times reported. People who were briefed on the app by the state party said that it wasn't
properly tested on a statewide scale, according to the paper, and reported only partial data.
"As part of our investigation, we determined with certainty that the underlying data
collected via the app was sound," said Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price. "While the app
was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data. We have determined that
this was due to a coding issue in the reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed.
The application's reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data
accurately."
... ... ...
How is Pete Buttigieg involved?
Even though caucus results were delayed, Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg
was triumphant, tweeting early in the morning on Feb. 4 that he was heading "to New Hampshire
victorious." Later that day, during an interview with MSNBC, he seemed to
temper that announcement, saying that the campaign was reviewing internal numbers and began
to realize "something extraordinary had happened."
"Here you have a campaign that was really questioned when we got in for whether we even
oughta be here, whether we belonged in this race, and to not only establish that, but to reach
the position that we did was a clear victory for our campaign," he said.
On social media, some users started to speculate that what they interpreted as a victory
announcement was a sign of corruption. Conspiracy theories began to spread that the election
had been rigged in Buttigieg's favor because of his connection to Shadow.
Some claims, such as that the Iowa caucus app was funded by Buttigieg, mischaracterize what
we know.
Buttigieg's campaign, Pete for America, Inc., paid Shadow $42,500 for "software rights and
subscriptions."
Sean Savett, a spokesman for the campaign, told PolitiFact that they contracted with Shadow
for text messaging services to help them contact voters.
It was "totally unrelated" to the app Shadow built for the caucuses, he said; Buttigieg's
campaign wasn't involved in the app's development.
The world is on fire. But for an increasingly vocal segment of extremely online politicos,
there is a greater geopolitical concern hanging over the election: the fear that Pete
Buttigieg is secretly an asset, officer, or agent of the Central Intelligence Agency.
The conspiracy theory that Buttigieg is a CIA plant has been congealing in the internet's
fever swamps for as long as profiles of the young candidate have fixated on a biography that,
to the conspiracy-minded, seems almost suspiciously clean -- the perceived threats of
neoliberal imperialists and the "deep state" converging in the unlikely form of a dweebish
Midwestern mayor.
"He's one of the many intelligence community operators working in government," Steve
Poikonen, host of the YouTube vlog series Slow News Day, said confidently in an April episode
titled "Pete Buttigieg: CIA Democrat?" In a 13-minute video delineating the conspiracy
theory, Poikonen breaks down what he sees as Buttigieg's Harvard-to-Oxford educational
pipeline, his service as a Navy Intelligence officer in Afghanistan after a stint at McKinsey
& Co., his fellowship at the Truman National Security Project, and the more than 200
national security and intelligence figures who have endorsed his candidacy, including the
former head of the National Clandestine Service and the agency's former deputy director.
These, Poikonen told The Daily Beast, all amount to evidence that he's a perfect tool of
the intelligence community.
"Put together, a picture forms of an elite-educated, multi-language-speaking employee of
the CIA's consulting firm who currently serves as an intelligence officer in the naval
reserves," Poikonen told The Daily Beast. "If you created a CIA asset in a lab, you'd wind up
with Pete Buttigieg."
"He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
"dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc " When you are divided, and angry, and controlled, you target those 'different' from
you, not those responsible [controllers]" -Q
"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional
political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.
But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul
In fairness, Buttigieg's own past offers material for conspiratorial pickings. At the consulting firm McKinsey, Buttigieg
helped advise on grocery pricing for the Canadian grocery giant Loblaws -- a company later implicated in an
industrywide price-fixing scheme for bread
. McKinsey has also been a favorite contractor for the CIA, although that
work was more about
reorganizing
the agency's bureaucracy than rigging elections.
After that, Buttigieg joined the Navy Reserve and deployed to Afghanistan, where he did intelligence work, among other
things. It's not quite clear where, in his work history, Buttigieg was supposedly recruited to work for the agency. Nor
can anyone seem to explain how his military role somehow switched over into work for the CIA, beyond both roles involving
intelligence. It's rare for an intelligence officer to use as his cover being an intelligence officer.
That hasn't mattered much for an audience that likes to see the CIA under every stone. It was likely
Chapo Trap House
-- a
very popular political comedy podcast, boasting over 35,000 paid subscribers and hundreds of thousands of listeners per
episode, that is fanatically supportive of Sanders -- that got #CIAPete trending on twitter. On the first episode of the podcast
after the delayed Iowa results were reported, one co-host, Will Menaker, concluded that the caucuses "had probably done
more to destroy the legitimacy of our democratic process than almost anything that happened in American history." Other
hosts chimed in with their agreement.
Menaker turned to Buttigieg, calling him, his campaign, supporters, and all involved in the Democratic Party "ratfuck
pieces of shit," concluding they were all guilty of electoral fraud.
Co-host Amber A'Lee Frost jumped in to add, "We would actually be sending in troops if we were a South American country
right now."
"Can you imagine if, in any Central or South American country, what happened last night took place?" Menaker agreed.
"Pete Buttigieg literally did the
Juan Guaidó
playbook. If
you don't think this guy is CIA-affiliated by now, I don't know what to tell you. This is straight out of the McKinsey-CIA
election-stealing ratfucking playbook. He declared himself the victor exactly like Juan Guaidó did with no support or evidence
for it."
... ... ...
Buttigieg did, indeed, declare victory in the Iowa caucuses before the results were in -- because the quirky rules of the
Iowa caucuses mean anyone can, roughly, count the results themselves....
Ludicrous as they are, the conspiracy theories are strangely apt for this primary season.
... ... ...
Virtually the whole field has taken the symbolic step to oppose America's engagement in so-called forever wars. But not
since Eugene McCarthy, who first pushed for congressional oversight of the CIA, and George McGovern, who helped
publicize
the assassination attempts on Cuba's Fidel Castro, has the party had a front-runner dove like Sanders.
Given that they are all too aware of America's actual history with political subterfuge abroad, it's not all that surprising
that Sanders's supporters, in particular, see coups behind every corner.
But fans of Sanders should really study up on the very cases he cites, because they offer a useful guide to the CIA playbook.
And they help explain why the idea of the agency putting its finger on the scale of the Iowa caucuses, at least with any
kind of success, is comical.
A frequent example of CIA coup involvement Sanders cites, 1973
ouster
of Chilean President Salvador Allende, is particularly instructive in showing just how flat-footed the CIA can
be.
The CIA spent much of the 1960s funding right-wing and Christian democratic groups in Chile in an effort to thwart a
socialist rise. They couldn't even do that properly, and in 1970 the left-wing Allende won in a three-way race.
"President Nixon informed the [director of central intelligence] that an Allende regime in Chile would not be acceptable
to the United States," reads a 2000 CIA
review
of the operation.
So the CIA dropped the subtle skullduggery and began providing weapons to anti-socialist elements in Chile -- factions of
which kidnapped and killed an army commander who refused to block Allende. Still, the CIA couldn't get a proper coup off
the ground, and Allende took office. The agency kept it up for the following three years, continuously communicating with
and providing intelligence to right-wing groups, including in the military. U.S. money indirectly supported a trucker strike,
which kept supermarkets bare, stoked unrest, and ultimately helped force Allende from power.
...His successor, Augusto Pinochet, would become one of the most brutal dictators in South America. Some
3,200 Chileans were killed or disappeared
during his 17-year rule. The CIA, generally satisfied to have an anti-communist
in power, cut off its aid to moderate and democratic activists.
The CIA's ham-fisted tactics were applied across Central and South America. Sanders
rattled off
a few examples in a foreign-policy interview with the
New York Times.
"The United States overthrew the government of Guatemala, a democratically elected government, overthrew the government
of Brazil," Sanders told the
Times.
"I strongly oppose U.S. policy, which overthrows governments, especially
democratically elected governments, around the world."
In 1954, the CIA ran an incredibly expensive and widespread campaign in Guatemala to prop up a right-wing, anti-communist
movement, largely through anti-communist media and propaganda. When that didn't take, the CIA chartered a private air force
to start bombing military installations. After that, an internal CIA cable instructed that it was time for "the surgeons
to step back and the nurses to take over the patient," according to Tim Weiner's history of the CIA,
Legacy of Ashes.
Through "brute force and blind luck," Weiner writes, the plot worked. Leftist President Jacobo Árbenz was out, and
military dictator Carlos Castillo Armas was in. His brutal regime would lead into the
36-year Guatemalan civil war.
The list of other examples is long. Mohammad Mossadeq was toppled in a
CIA-backed military coup in 1953
, over his nationalization of Iran's oil. Joăo Goulart was overthrown in Brazil in 1964,
thanks in part to U.S. funds and arms
. The Reagan administration famously orchestrated a
scheme
to launder money to the far-right Contra rebels in Nicaragua by selling weapons to Iran -- there was no coup, but
tens of thousands of people died in the fighting before the left-wing Sandinista government lost power in 1990. All of these
were bloody, chaotic affairs in which the CIA role was either apparent at the time or rapidly emerged.
The history of U.S. covert operations is long and varied -- ordered by both Democrats and Republicans, targeting foreign
leaders both democratic and authoritarian -- but there are two things that tie virtually all of them together: CIA operations
are not subtle, and they don't stay secret for long.
Both of those factors slowly led to a decrease in CIA foreign operations.
Concerns about foreign coups led to the creation of the Church Committee, which, in 1976, offered a
clear and damning look at CIA meddling
. That led to an
executive order
banning the assassination of foreign leaders. The CIA whined about that legal barrier, complaining it
tied its hands as it tried to oust the Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega, once a CIA asset, in 1988 and 1989. Plans to
get rid of him were leaked, too, before they were put into action -- no matter, as Reagan ended up invading anyway. The assassination
ban has shifted over time, but the appetite for the swashbuckling days was evaporating.
Part of it was that nobody could keep their mouths shut. Emmanuel Constant, a Haitian paramilitary leader,
was outed as a CIA asset
after a 1991 coup in that country. Then he went on
60 Minutes
to discuss his role.
... ... ...
Sanders is right to be critical of U.S. involvement in coups and regime change -- and even today, oversight of intelligence
is a critical issue.
Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, speaks at a campaign
stop at the Merrimack American Legion on Thursday in Merrimack, N.H.
SOUTH BEND -- Conspiracy theories and rumors have always surrounded presidential campaigns, so
it shouldn't be a surprise that South Bend's former mayor has recently drawn his share.
For the past few days, The Tribune also has been drawn into the web of rumors surrounding the
campaign of Pete Buttigieg. They involve abused dogs, an "I can't breathe" T-shirt and even
the CIA.
They're also the latest proof of how information -- more precisely, disinformation -- spreads
on social media these days and, by the time it gets shared and circulated and passed along,
becomes accepted as true. The public then gets suspicious of attempts by media outlets to
debunk the rumors.
Case in point: A Twitter user this past weekend made a fake image of a supposed Aug. 30, 1998
Tribune front page reporting that a teen Buttigieg was arrested for a shocking crime
involving dogs. Everything about the image screamed bogus. It was generated through an online
program that creates fake newspaper clippings.
But even though that Twitter user admitted Sunday night he intended the fabrication as a
joke, The Tribune was still receiving calls and messages Monday afternoon hoping to verify
the story. Some thanked us for clarifying it; others angrily denounced us for "covering up
for Pete."
So let's just make this perfectly clear: The Tribune did not publish the story making the
rounds. The fake Aug. 30, 1998 Tribune front page gives several clues it isn't real.
• The masthead is a different font and style from what Tribune used in the 1990s.
• The Tribune would not have named anyone "arrested on suspicion" of the crimes in question
before that person was charged. That's especially true of a 16-year-old, Buttigieg's age on
that date.
• There's no age or hometown listed. There's also no byline or dateline.
• The headline goes over at least three columns of the fake page, which appears folded and
shows only the left side. But the second column says the story continues on A10. (It does so
in the wrong style, by the way.)
The phony Tribune front page is far from the only rumor or conspiracy theory circulating
about Buttigieg.
"Pete is CIA" is another meme generating coverage and many calls and messages to The Tribune,
with readers asking us to expose the truth. "Pete is a CIA agent" has also become a common
comment on our social media posts.
The Daily Beast did an
extensive exploration
of this theory, debunking some aspects (such as a security firm
working for the campaign with a name similar to another security firm reputedly tied to the
CIA, or a claim that Buttigieg admitted he sought a post with the agency).
Then there are aspects to the theory that are impossible to debunk, such as the candidate's
"mesmerizing, hypnotic blue eyes" giving away his secret agent status.
Buttigieg's strong showing in the Iowa caucuses last week drew out other conspiracies.
The idea that the Democratic National Committee may have refigured the caucus results to
avoid giving any share of victory to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders had support even among
mainstream sources. That includes Sanders himself asking for another recount.
But a murkier theory wrongly blames Buttigieg for a Shadow, Inc., smartphone app that
disastrously malfunctioned, delaying vote totals for days. The Buttigieg campaign did buy a
separate app from Shadow, as did fellow candidates Joe Biden and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well
as the Texas Democratic Party.
It was actually the Iowa Democratic Party that paid Shadow to develop the failed caucus app.
Nevada bought the same app but has said its caucus won't use it after seeing how it failed in
Iowa.
In another example, t
he
story
of the Notre Dame women's basketball team wearing shirts with the message "I can't
breathe," after the July 17, 2014, death of New York City resident Eric Garner after a police
officer's chokehold, has resurfaced.
Three South Bend council members have asked Mishawaka police officer Jason
Barthel to stop selling T-shirts he created in response to 'I Can't Breathe'
Recent accounts falsely report that a South Bend police officer created a shirt saying
"Breathe Easy: Don't break the law" in response to the basketball team's protest. It was
actually Mishawaka police officer Jason Barthel who created the shirts.
Some of the recent accounts also state Buttigieg supported the shirts. He actually tried to
avoid taking sides
.
Buttigieg's statement fearing citizens being asked to choose between supporting civil rights
for minorities or supporting police was criticized by many, including South Bend Common
Council members, at the time. But even that nuance is stripped from versions of the story now
making the rounds.
"As residents exercise their free speech rights, it is
important to be respectful of others' concerns,"
Buttigieg said in a statement at the time. "The sensitive
issues now being discussed across America deserve to be
taken seriously, and we as a community have a lot of work
to do in addressing them here at home."
"We cannot rest until all residents and all public safety
officers view each other in an authentic spirit of mutual
trust and respect."
On one social media post attacking Buttigieg over the
issue, one commenter linked to a Tribune story from 2014
and corrected the assertion South Bend police were
involved. The comment was deleted, and comments were
turned off altogether.
I think there probably is, because as things stand now it's all hands on the establishment
deck to figure out a way to thwart the campaign of Bernie Sanders from continuing to gather
momentum. I've been a Tulsi Gabbard supporter - and still am, both politically and
financially - since 2015, but right now Bernie (who coincidentally and unlike Tulsi wasn't
excluded from the debates and has not been treated as a persona non grata by the entire
spectrum of mainstream media) is the one to watch.
The Nevada Democratic party (misnomer much?) has hired a heretofore member of Pete
Buttigieg's campaign into the position of "defender of democracy" or some similarly
Orwellian-named position. I think it's safe to assume the fix is in (again), and as a
resident of New Hampshire I also believe - as in every election since I've been paying
attention in 2000 - manipulation of votes was done around the periphery to keep things
manageable. Move a little from column a into column b, a little from column a into column c,
a little from column d into column b, etc.
I listened to a part of Buttigig's speech last night. He is articulate, speaks well, and has
a nice voice. He's also Mr Clean and wears a nice suit. That makes for a very saleable
product. He is appealing to the muddled mediocre middle, but Christian fundamentalists will
never vote for a man married to another man. They would sooner vote for Putin.
I also heard part of Bernie's speech. Lots of promises of Free Stuff for Everyone! Joe and
Jane Sixpack know that nobody gets free stuff unless they are rich. Not a single word from
Bernie about putting the Empire up for sale and closing 800 military bases around the
world.
Bernie could maybe convince Joe and Jane if he pointed out that the trillion dollars a
year we are already paying to prop up the Empire would buy a lot of Free Stuff that we all
need, like basic infrastructure and real healthcare (medical insurance is not accurate
diagnosis and effective treatment, but nobody wants to talk about that). But he will never
call for all troops to return home immediately, since endless war is supported by nearly
everyone in DC.
Class unconscious Joe and Jane have only luke-warm support for "soaking the rich" because
they still want to hope that someday they will win Megabucks and have riches to pass on to
their offspring. Fifty years of slow decline should be enough to break through delusions of
MAGA, but for now the consent manufacturing machine still has the upper hand.
Buttigieg stepped into a doggie pile and is getting rightfully deserved flak for deceptive
comments he made meant to diss and undermine Bernie's medicare-for-all.
Association of Flight Attendants President Sara Nelson criticized former South Bend, Ind.,
Mayor Pete Buttigieg Wednesday for a tweet defending private health insurance, that
appeared to characterize the employer-provided health benefits as gains won by union
workers.
Buttigieg defended his proposed "Medicare for All Who Want It" plan, saying 14 million
union members have "fought hard for strong employer-provided health benefits" in a tweet
Wednesday morning.
Nelson, who played a key role in ending the federal government shutdown last year,
called the invocation of labor rights "offensive and dangerous."
"Stop perpetuating this gross myth. Not every union member has union healthcare plans
that protect them," Nelson tweeted. "Those that do have it, have to fight like hell to keep
it. If you believe in Labor then you'd understand an injury to one is an injury to
all."
MORE AND MORE I SUSPECT BUTTIGIEG OF BEING THE CULPRIT WHO GOT UNION LEADERS IN NEVADA TO
CIRCULATE FEAR-MONGERING PROPAGANDA ON BERNIE SANDERS ALLEGING THE GROSS LIE THAT MEMBERS
WILL LOSE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE IF BERNIE BECOMES PRESIDENT.
Circe. More like paper bags with $ got Union Leaders to do the deed. You realize it speaks
really loudly as to the intelligence of union members in Nevada, that they would believe that
a so called socialist would do this. Mind you I guess if the info comes from a 'Trusted'
source might do the trick.
I hope im wrong but Bern is the perfect fall guy for a
Pete the Cheat is curiously dodging
foreign policy questions. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that Mr. Neoliberal, centrist
Buttigieg has an unpopular interventionist point of view?
MayoCheat was not nice to the black community in South Bend, Ind. As a matter of fact he
was downright condescending and disrespectful to the Black Community.: (watch video Democracy
Now!)
Yep, Pete's an interventionist...read this from above link.
After college, the Democratic presidential hopeful took a gig with a strategic
communications firm founded by a former Secretary of Defense who raked in contracts with
the arms industry. He moved on to a fellowship at an influential DC think tank described by
its founder as "a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s." Today, Buttigieg
sits on that think tank's board of advisors alongside some of the country's most
accomplished military interventionists.
Buttigieg has reaped the rewards of his dedication to the Beltway playbook. He
recently became the top recipient of donations from staff members of the Department of
Homeland Security, the State Department, and the Justice Department – key cogs in the
national security state's permanent bureaucracy.
Feel free to read the rest on the ambitious mayor who was groomed by national security
state apparatchiks. (I need a shower after reading the rest of it!)
Why are so many intelligence veterans throwing their weight behind a young Indiana mayor with such a thin foreign policy resume?
These questions continue to loom large over the 2020 Democratic primary field: Who is Pete Buttigieg? And what is he doing here?
Seemingly overnight, the once obscure mayor of Indiana's fourth-largest city was vaulted to national prominence, with his campaign
coffers stuffed with big checks from billionaire benefactors.
The publication of a list of
218 endorsements from "foreign policy and national security professionals" by Buttigieg's campaign deepened the mystery of the
mayor's rise.
Buttigieg's new roster of endorsements from former high-ranking CIA officials, regime-change architects, and global financiers
should raise more questions about the real forces propelling his campaign.
Patriot Group is currently under contract w/the US military.
They provide "contractor-owned, contractor-operated intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance aerial detection and monitoring
support inside & outside the U.S."
Buttigieg has offered precious few details about his policy plans, and foreign policy is no exception. His campaign website dedicates
just five sentences to international affairs, none
of which offers any substantive details.
Beyond a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan as a Naval Reservist in 2010, the 37 year-old mayor has no first-hand foreign policy
experience to speak of.
As The Grayzone's
Max Blumenthal reported , Buttigieg's enjoys a long relationship with the Truman National Security Project, a foreign policy
think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for "muscular liberalism." He has also taken a short, strange trip to Somaliland with
a Harvard buddy, Nathaniel Myers, who ultimately became a senior advisor to USAID's Office of Transitional Initiatives. Otherwise,
Buttigieg's foreign policy credentials are nil.
Buttigieg's lack of core principles are what might make him so attractive to military contractors and financial institutions,
two of the status quo's biggest beneficiaries.
Mayor Pete has effectively positioned himself as a Trojan Horse for the establishment, offering "generational change" that doesn't
challenge existing power structures in any concrete way.
A review of Pete for America's
FEC disclosures found that the campaign had paid $561,416.82 for "security" to a company called Patriot Group International (PGI),
from June 4 to September 9, 2019.
Buttigieg's August 29, 2019 payment of $179,617.04 to PGI represents the single largest security expenditure ever made by a presidential
candidate, according to the FEC.
While the exorbitant amount of money raises questions, it is PGI's status as a Blackwater-style mercenary firm that makes Buttigieg's
contract so remarkable.
PGI bills itself as a "global mission support provider with expeditionary
capabilities, providing services to select clients within the intelligence, defense, and private sector." According to the company's
website , it offers services
like counter-terrorism, counter-weapons of mass destruction, and drone surveillance.
PGI is currently under a
$26.5 million contract with the Department of Defense to provide "contractor-owned, contractor-operated intelligence, surveillance
and reconnaissance aerial detection and monitoring support inside and outside the U.S." It is a far cry from securing campaign events
held in New Hampshire community centers.
Besides contracting with Buttigieg, PGI's only other record of
political work was with Newt Gingrich's 2012 presidential campaign. In a 2016
Inc. Magazine profile , PGI founder Greg Craddock said his company stopped doing political work altogether, following a 2012
incident in which a PGI employee on Gingrich's security detail allegedly assaulted an overzealous Ron Paul supporter.
Why the mercenary firm chose to re-enter politics for the mayor of South Bend, Indiana remains an open question. Whatever the
reason, Buttigieg's willingness to line the pockets of military contractors as a candidate might offer further insight into why so
many in the national security state are lining up behind him.
The CIA hearts Mayor Pete
Buttigieg's lengthy roster of endorsements is loaded with former intelligence operatives, national security hardliners, regime-change
specialists, and vulture capitalists.
Among Buttigieg's most notable endorsers is
David S. Cohen , the deputy director of
the CIA from 2015 to 2017, and a former Treasury official under George W. Bush.
Cohen is regarded as a "
chief architect " of the crippling sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Iran, Russia, and North Korea -- earning
him the ignominious nickname the "
sanctions guru. "
Since leaving government, Cohen has made various
think tank appearances
to advocate for continued use of sanctions in the aforementioned countries, as well as
Venezuela .
In his tenure at the Treasury Department, Cohen was also instrumental in
drafting the Patriot Act, which restricted civil
liberties and vastly increased the government's surveillance powers in response to 9/11.
Cohen has yet to speak publicly as to why he endorsed Buttigieg.
Buttigieg was likewise endorsed by Charlie Gilbert
, former deputy director of the National Clandestine Service, a top-ten leadership position at the CIA. Gilbert's role was to "conceive,
plan, and execute complex intelligence operations" against "hostile target [countries]."
Another Buttigieg endorser, John Bair , is the former
chief of staff for the CIA's Middle East Task Force.
Dennis Bowden , a 26-year CIA veteran, with
much of that time spent in unspecified "executive leadership positions," is also backing Mayor Pete.
The Buttigieg campaign has cited the support of former CIA senior analyst
Sue Terry , who made a "record number
of contributions to the President's Daily Brief," during her tenure from 2001 to 2008.
Two more CIA endorsements came from former senior intelligence officer
Martijn Rasser , and former senior analyst
Andrea Kendall-Taylor , who was also an officer at
the National Intelligence Council.
If you're thinking, "Wow, that's a lot of CIA endorsements for a relatively unknown, small-town mayor," you're right – and it's
just the tip of the iceberg.
More Buttigieg backers include
Ned Price , the career CIA analyst who resigned publicly in a February 2017 protest against "the way [Trump] has treated the
intelligence community." (Price was also a major Clinton donor, but insisted his resignation was non-partisan).
Another CIA Buttigieg endorser is Jeffrey Edmunds , who moonlighted
as a National Security Council member under Presidents Obama and Trump.
Buttigieg was also endorsed by Chris Barton ,
the CIA's assistant general counsel during the Clinton administration, and
Anthony Lake , whom Clinton nominated unsuccessfully to serve as CIA director in 1996.
Mayor Pete's list of spook supporters similarly includes non-CIA intelligence community professionals like
Robert Stasio , the former chief of operations at the NSA Cyber
Center, and William Wechsler , former deputy
assistant secretary for Special Ops at the Department of Defense.
Buttigieg also named Robin Walker , a former deputy intelligence
officer for the Director of National Intelligence, as a supporter. Walker now works for corporate weapons contractor Lockheed Martin.
Regime change hit-men and debt colonists jump on the bandwagon
Yet some of Mayor Pete's most troubling endorsements come from outside of the military-intelligence apparatus.
Buttigieg, for example, lists Fernando Cutz
as an endorser. For the first 16 months of the Trump administration, Cutz was the national security council director for South America,
where he led US policy on Venezuela and was credited with outlining regime-change plans for the president.
Revealing comments from @fscutz , one of the key
architects of the US coup in Venezuela, declaring that the goal of intervention is to "restore Venezuela's place as an upper middle
class country" https://t.co/jZsNLu5rWB pic.twitter.com/2IX8d1n41P
Another Buttigieg endorser is Jessica Reitz-Curtin , who
spent several years in leadership at USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), working alongside Buttigieg's close friend,
Nathaniel Myers.
OTI is the de-facto
tip of the spear for USAID's regime change efforts. In the case of Venezuela, OTI has
bankrolled violent,
right-wing opposition forces for decades.
There is also plenty of excitement for Buttigieg at the commanding heights of international finance.
Matt Kaczmarek , vice president of BlackRock, the world's
largest investment manager, controlling nearly $7 trillion in assets, is listed as an endorser of the South Bend mayor.
Kaczmarek previously served as the NSC's director
of Brazil and Southern Cone affairs in the Obama administration, when the US backed a right-wing parliamentary coup against President
Dilma Roussef.
BlackRock has massive holdings in Brazilian agribusiness, and is a major factor in the environmental
degradation of the Amazon region. BlackRock's practices have been so destructive to the region that
AmazonWatch named
the financial behemoth the "world's largest investor in deforestation."
Kaczmarek is a perfect embodiment of the revolving door through which high-ranking government employees enter the private sector
and reap the rewards of policies they previously helped implement. In 2013, while Kaczmarek was crafting US economic policy towards
Brazil, then-Vice President Joseph Biden was
urging the country to open its economy further to foreign capital.
From 2014 to the present, BlackRock has substantially increased its investment in Brazil, according to the AmazonWatch report.
Now at the helm of the company, Kaczmarek stands to profit handsomely from the same economic liberalization policies that Brazil
was goaded into adopting at his direction.
Buttigieg's list of endorsers likewise includes Karen
Mathiasen , former acting executive US director at the World Bank; as well as
Julie T. Katzman , COO of the Inter-American Development
Bank (IDB). Both organizations have long histories of using debt to impose the will of US policymakers onto poor countries.
Mathiasen, who previously served as deputy assistant secretary for debt and development policy at the Treasury Department, was
intimately involved in the administration of what has been dubbed "
debt colonialism ." Under this cynical practice,
unsustainable levels of debt are used as a pretext to demand that debtor nations privatize government functions, impose austerity,
and allow greater exploitation by global capital.
The IDB where Katzman worked plays a similar role in enforcing the
Washington
Consensus across the Western hemisphere. Wielding debt as its weapon, IDB policies maintain "[Latin America's] subordinated place
in the global economy," argues Professor
Victor Sepúlveda , author of Industrial Colonialism in Latin America: The Third Stage .
Empire's empty vessel
Obscure presidential candidates don't typically garner hundreds of elite national security endorsements before a single vote is
cast. So what do these spooks and vulture capitalists see in Mayor Pete?
It can't be Buttigieg's foreign policy resume, because he doesn't have one. He hasn't proposed any notable policies to distinguish
himself from the other corporate-friendly candidates, so that can't be it either. Some have posited that Mayor Pete may be a CIA
asset himself, but the supporting evidence is circumstantial at best.
Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion is that they see Buttigieg as an empty vessel. Opportunistic and unmoored by ideology or
political goals beyond his advancing his career, Buttigieg is the ideal candidate for those who seek to maintain existing hierarchies.
Indeed, his national security endorsement list is filled with people who keep America's imperial machine humming along smoothly.
What is the thread that connects the CIA, USAID, and the World Bank? All three institution exist to prop up a grossly unequal
global order in which a tiny sliver of the population hordes unimaginable wealth, while the mass of people get by on next to nothing.
At a time when that order looks increasingly untenable, with anti-austerity protests breaking out from
Chile
, to France, to
Lebanon , Mayor
Pete makes perfect sense.
, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor is riding a wave of press attention and a
potential polling surge . The American Legion hall hosting the event was at capacity, to
the chagrin of both a Dane and a Canadian waiting to see America's newest political celebrity.
Some of the media, too, found themselves on the outside looking in, trawling the line for
voters with something to say. Buttigieg briefly dismounted from his SUV convoy to thank the
supporters stuck outside, before pulling away to a back entrance to the building.
Inside, cameramen peeked around flag stands to get shots of the candidate as he unspooled a
message of doing right by America's veterans. Buttigieg extolled homecomings, better military
housing, and the unity in diversity he found in uniform ("task cohesion," in the parlance of
the sociologists). He rightly raised the issue of veterans
hamstrung by "bad paper" discharges for failings often linked to trauma they suffered
overseas.
Buttigieg occasionally found himself on more uncertain ground. As the technocrat's
technocrat, he is never more at ease than when explaining a problem that should be amenable to
a procedural fix -- like when "systems aren't talking to each other." Confronted with a human
issue, he contorts himself into phrases like "gender parity in the experience of serving this
country in uniform." If that means what it sounds like, reality will rudely intrude. Even the
Nordic countries, probably the most egalitarian nations on earth and all with at least a loose
conscription system on the books, are striving to get their militaries to 20 percent
female.
In a tidy 50 minutes with Buttigieg, foreign policy -- the actual ends to which American
servicemen are dedicated and sometimes sacrificed -- received scant attention. It was an odd
elephant in the room: Fawlty Towers' " don't mention the war! " rebooted, ongoing
conflicts that most American politicians would just as soon ignore. An Air Force veteran asked
the mayor what he learned in Kabul. Afghanistan itself, and what we're still doing there, was
all but absent from the long answer. There were more questions (one) about Brexit than
Iran.
The event was sponsored by VoteVets, a decade-old political action committee that endorsed
Buttigieg in December. Other veterans seem more inclined to be skeptical of a naval reservist
who appeared to punch a ticket with a short Afghan tour and then returned to climbing ladders
Stateside. Buttigieg advetizes early and often: loud noises become a springboard to a
brief, artful reference about what one "learns on deployment." He uses his time in uniform to
undercut Beto, level with Klobuchar, and attack Trump.
True, Buttigieg ventured "outside the wire" often (
and kept count when he did ), and the threat of an improvised explosive device lurked on
every Afghan road. But the mayor's descriptions of his service often have the ring of military
LARPing .
His stories of service dwell far more on convoy duty than on the presumably more valuable work
he was doing behind a desk in Kabul. He writes of "shipping out" -- a phrase surely last
deployed in a war movie. Buttigieg never internalized the enlisted rank structure (the Marine
Corps does not employ anyone who answers to "gunny sergeant"). And cringe-worthy posed war zone
photos drew
predictable heat online .
Buttigieg's military record would hardly be the least distinguished in presidential history.
Captain Ronald Reagan spent his war at the Army Air Force's First Motion Picture Unit in
California. Naval reservist Lyndon Baines Johnson received
a sham Silver Star despite never coming under fire. The problem is not Pete Buttigieg's
service: it is what he seems to have learned, or rather not learned, from his time in
Afghanistan.
Buttigieg's campaign-ready memoir, Shortest Way Home , gives the mayor's Afghanistan
deployment due weight. But why he served isn't really clear. What the eager young volunteer
learned in his five months in Afghanistan is even more opaque. In the book, Buttigieg refers to
John Kerry's apt formulation: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
All that the famously erudite, would-be Kerry 2.0 can offer is repeated platitudes about how
wars don't end anymore.
When the New York Times asked Democratic candidates about regime change wars and U.S.
support for coups, "Mr.
Buttigieg did not answer this question." Ditto for all of the Times' questions about
Afghanistan, the war upon which Buttigieg's claims to foreign policy expertise hinge. Buttigieg
remains essentially a cipher on foreign policy, sensible words about the AUMF aside. He sounds
the right progressive notes but refuses to be pinned down on much of substance. It is hard to
imagine him diverging much from the bipartisan foreign policy consensus that has wreaked so
much havoc, in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Ninety miles north in West Lebanon, just across the river from Vermont, the other veteran in
the race helmed a far smaller town hall. Clad in woodsman casual, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
spoke to an audience perhaps a quarter the size of Buttigieg's. The Hawaiian struck similar
notes to the Indianan: unity, bipartisanship, common sense. She decried tribalism and described
her successes in working across the aisle. (Note: Tulsi Gabbard is on the unpaid Council of
Advisors to the Center for the Study of Statesmanship. She and the author had not met prior to
Thursday night.)
Gabbard's crowd spoke to her cross-party appeal -- or her alienation from her own party.
Just five hands went up when she asked who in the crowd was a Democrat (seven claimed to be
Republicans). The vast majority in the room identified as independents or libertarians.
Several, and perhaps most, were Vermonters. One man asked Gabbard point-blank: "Have you ever
considered changing parties, or maybe re-affiliating somewhere?"
Though the Lebanon event did not focus on foreign policy, Gabbard's supporters, animated by
her lonely heresies on the subject, raised the issue. In a tone more healing than strident, the
congresswoman stuck to her guns. Though not fully dismissing humanitarian intervention, she
rightly noted that humanitarianism is often the guise under which intractable, unjustifiable
U.S.-led wars proceed. She vowed to reject "all these people" in the failed foreign policy
establishment. One feels confident that even Samantha Power, most sainted of the
she-hawks , would not be welcome in a Gabbard Administration.
Gabbard, last graced with a CNN town hall in March, soldiers on. Deval Patrick, the former
Massachusetts governor who will likely receive a tenth of the New Hampshire votes she does, got
his time on the big stage yesterday.
Polling indicates that Gabbard may receive over 5 percent of the vote in New Hampshire,
where she has focused most of her attention. Media dismissal and outright slander has
knee-capped Gabbard's campaign to be president. Her fellow millennial veteran provided a small
assist. Interviewed a week ago by Bill Maher, the late night host told Buttigieg, "You are the
only military veteran in this." "Yeah," replied the mayor, his sister-in-arms erased.
Tulsi Gabbard's next move will be interesting. Gabbard herself was vague on the subject last
night. She is not running for re-election to Congress; this will be her last campaign for the
moment. Despite appearing to burn her bridges with the Democratic Party, she could have a place
in a Sanders Administration. Regardless, one hopes her voice will remain a part of the national
conversation. Tulsi Gabbard has far more to offer than the conventionally hollow Mayor
Pete.
Gil Barndollar is a New Hampshire native and a fellow at the Catholic University of
America's Center for the Study of Statesmanship.
Gabbard has been "Ron Pauled" by the Dems. Ironically she gets better assistance and
hearing from the libertarian right than from her own Dem progressive antiwar wing. Go
figure.
If Sanders survives the DNC efforts to cast him aside, Gabbard would be a decisive
"and take that" VP choice. If not: A third party ticket of Tulsi and Amash could be very
interesting and throw a bit of consternation toward both camps.
Another corroboration that the DNC isn't at all interested in winning the election,
despite incessant litanies about stopping the Orange Man's Rule of Badness. They've (yet)
got Tulsi, who can reliably beat Trump, but prefer this bleak character, who won't have
much chances even against a half-decent conventional Republican, instead, advertizing him
as a "second Obama" for hell knows which reason.
Just the fact that Buttigieg would allow himself to be interviewed by the
Islamophobic, lying, and basically disgusting Bill Maher says a lot about his lack of
character and integrity.
A t the time of publication, 12 hours after voting in the Democratic Party's Iowa caucuses
ended, the results have not been announced. The delay in reporting is the result of a failed
app developed by a company appropriately named Shadow Inc.
This firm was staffed by Hillary Clinton and
Barack Obama campaign veterans and created by a Democratic dark-money nonprofit backed by
hedge fund billionaires including Seth Klarman. A prolific funder of pro-settler Israel lobby
organizations, Klarman has also contributed directly to Pete Buttigieg's campaign.
The delay in the vote reporting denied a victory speech to Sen. Bernie Sanders, the
presumptive winner of the opening contest in the Democratic presidential primary. Though not
one exit poll indicated that Buttigieg would have won, the former mayor South Bend, Indiana,
took to Twitter to confidently proclaim himself the victor.
Iowa, you have shocked the nation.
By all indications, we are going on to New Hampshire victorious. #IowaCaucuses
Though a dark money Democratic operation turned out to be the source of the disastrous app,
suspicion initially centered on former Hillary Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook and his
Russiagate-related elections integrity initiative.
Leveraging Russia Hysteria
While Iowa Democratic Party Chairman Troy Price refused to say who was behind the failed
app,
he told NPR that he "worked with the national party's cybersecurity team and Harvard
University's Defending Digital Democracy project ." Price did not offer details on his
collaboration with the Harvard group, however.
The New York Timesreported
that this same outfit had teamed up with Iowa Democrats to run a "drill of worst-case
scenarios" and possible foreign threats, but was also vague on details.
Robby Mook, the former campaign manager for Hillary Clinton's failed 2016 presidential
campaign, was the co-founder of Defending Digital Democracy. His initiative arose out of
the national freakout over Russian meddling that he and his former boss helped stir when
they blamed their loss on Russian interference. Mook's new outfit pledged to
"protect from hackers and propaganda attacks."
He founded the organization with help from Matt Rhoades, a former campaign manager for
Republican Mitt Romney whose public relations company was
sued by a Silicon Valley investor after it branded him "an agent of the Russian government"
and "a friend of Russian President Vladimir Putin." Rhoades's firm had been contracted by a
business rival to destroy the investor's reputation.
As outrage grew over the delay in Iowa caucus results, Mook publicly denied any role in
designing the notorious app.
Hours later, journalist Lee Fang reported that a previously
unknown tech outfit called Shadow Inc. had contracted with the Iowa Democratic Party to create
the failed technology. The firm was comprised of former staffers for Obama, Clinton and the
tech industry, and had been paid for services by the Buttigieg campaign.
FEC filings show the Iowa Democratic party and Buttigieg campaign paid Shadow Inc.
The Path to Mayor Pete's Wine Cave
Shadow Inc. was launched by a major
Democratic dark money nonprofit called Acronym, which also gave birth to a $7.7 million Super
PAC known as Pacronym.
According to Sludge
, Pacronym's largest donor is Seth Klarman. A billionaire hedge funder, Klarman also happens to
be a top donor to Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar.
Though he has attracted some attention for his role in the campaign, Klarman's prolific
funding of the pro-settler Israel lobby and Islamophobic initiatives has gone almost entirely
unmentioned .
Seth Klarman is the founder of the Boston-based Baupost Group hedge fund and a longtime
donor to corporate Republican candidates. After Donald Trump called for forgiving Puerto Rico's
debt, Klarman --
the owner of $911 million of the island's bonds -- flipped and began funding Trump's
opponents.
The billionaire's crusade against Trump ultimately led him to Mayor Pete's wine cave.
By the end of 2019, Klarman had
donated $5,600 to Buttigieg and pumped money into the campaigns of Senators Amy Klobuchar,
Cory Booker and Kamala Harris as well.
The billionaire's support for centrist candidates appears to be driven not only by his own
financial interests, but by his deep and abiding ideological commitment to Israel and its
expansionist project.
As I reported for
Mondoweiss , Klarman has been a top funder for major Israel lobby outfits, including those
that support the expansion of illegal settlements and Islamophobic initiatives.
Klarman was the principal funder of The Israel Project, the recently
disbanded Israeli government-linked propaganda organization that lobbied against the Iran
nuclear deal and backed the Israeli
settlement enterprise .
Klarman has heaped hundreds of thousands of dollars on the Middle East Media Research
Institute (MEMRI) and the American Jewish Committee. And he funded The David Project, which was
established to suppress Palestine solidarity organizing on campuses across the U.S. and battled
to block the establishment of a Muslim community center in Boston.
Through his support for the Friends of Ir David Inc, Klarman directly involved himself in
the Israeli settlement enterprise, assisting the U.S.-based tax exempt arm of the organization
that oversaw
a wave of Palestinian expulsions in the occupied East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.
Other pro-Israel groups reaping the benefits of Klarman's generosity include Birthright
Israel, the AIPAC-founded Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies (FDD), a neoconservative think tank that helped devise Trump's "maximum
pressure" campaign of economic warfare on Iran.
Klarman is the owner of the Times of Israel , an Israeli media outlet that once
published a call for
Palestinian genocide . (The op-ed was removed following public backlash).
In recent weeks, Buttigieg has
sought to distinguish himself from Sanders on the issue of Israel-Palestine. During a testy
exchange this January with a self-proclaimed Jewish supporter of Palestinian human rights, the
South Bend mayor backtracked on a previous pledge to withhold military aid to Israel if it
annexed parts of the West Bank.
NEW: The day after Trump unveiled his plan green-lighting Israeli annexation and
Netanyahu's announcement of a cabinet vote on annexation this Tuesday, @PeteButtigieg backtracked
on his repeated promise that the "U.S. will not foot the bill for annexation." #StopFundingOccupation
pic.twitter.com/dldyRnI5lo
Battling Bernie with Hedge Fund Money & Sexism Claims
Like Klarman, Donald Sussman is a hedge funder who has channeled his fortune into Pacronym.
He has given $1 million to the Super PAC and was also
top donor to Clinton in 2016.
His daughter, Democratic operative Emily Tisch Sussman, declared on MSNBC in September that
"if you still support Sanders over Warren, it's kind of showing your sexism."
MSNBC pundit says if you support Bernie Sanders over Elizabeth Warren it's "showing your
sexism." pic.twitter.com/fghFIqOF6C
As Democratic elites like the Sussmans braced for a Bernie Sanders triumph in Iowa, a
mysterious piece of technology spun out by a group they supported delayed the vote results,
preventing Sanders from delivering a victory speech. And the politician many of them supported,
Pete Buttigieg, exploited the moment to declare himself the winner. In such a strange scenario,
conspiracy theories write themselves.
Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
" Republican
Gomorrah ," " Goliath ," "
The
Fifty One Day War " and " The Management of
Savagery ." He has also produced numerous print articles for an array of publications, many
video reports and several documentaries including " Killing Gaza " and " Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie ." Blumenthal founded the Grayzone
Project in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its
dangerous domestic repercussions.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of
Consortium News.
Limert , February 7, 2020 at 02:34
How much confusion is it possible to create from counting votes in an election in a small
state? It is worrisome, to say the least, that we on Friday, four days after the event, still
don't have the final numbers. How difficult can it be? Worse still, we don't know exactly
what happened. How could Buttigieg, polling at ~15-20%, according to latest polls, suddenly
be ahead in most districts? Biden's under performing was not a big surprise, at least not to
me, but did all the votes that Biden didn't get go to Buttigieg? Did the way the caucuses
were managed, somehow direct a great number of people towards Buttigieg? Is there still a
discrepancy between the official results and Bernie Sanders' internal counts? According to
many reports from the caucuses, many questionable things happened that all tended to disfavor
Bernie Sanders, and most of them cannot simply be blamed on an app. Still 1% of the results
are missing, presumably from Bernie Sanders strongholds. It seems that counting votes to
Bernie Sanders must be extremely exhausting to DNC staffers.
Jeff Steinmetz , February 6, 2020 at 00:43
In a public statement Shadow Inc stated that they "contracted with the the Iowa Democratic
Party to build a caucus reporting mobile app" , so why don't they have an
expenditure/disbursement in the FEC filings?
See this link for the statement from Shadow Inc. See:
ktiv.com/2020/02/04/nevada-democratic-party-abandons-app-used-in-iowa-caucuses/
When you do a search on the FEC web site with IOWA DEMOCRATIC PARTY (C00035600) as the
spender and Shadow Inc. as the the RECIPIENT NAME OR ID you get a NOTHING.
Thank you for providing the link to the FEC web site. I spent some time on the site asking
a bunch of different questions.
1) What other presidential candidates paid Shadow Inc.?
GILLIBRAND 2020 paid a total of $37,400.00
PETE FOR AMERICA, INC. $42,500.00
BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT $ 1,225.00
However, when you look at who has spent money with Shadow Inc you won't see the Iowa
Democratic Party spent anything with Shadow Inc. So how did the Iowa Democratic Party get the
software? Who paid for it? How much was paid? Was it given to them? If there is no money to
track you can not follow the money. So how did the Iowa Democratic Party end up with the
software? You can see that NEVADA STATE DEMOCRATIC PARTY paid Shadow Inc $58,000.00, but it
seems the software just landed in lap of the Iowa Democratic Party.
robert e williamson jr , February 5, 2020 at 15:30
Patriot: It time to go to the tool shed and get the shovels and axes yet?
Billionaire: Oh Nooooo the markets are doing too well!
Trumpster Dumpster squatter: Oh Dog how I love this guy who is going to end up starving us
all to death!
Ole Bob; Ole Bob here, it's time for dirty pool and judo in the trenches.
It appears the entire power structure in the US is scared beyond all reason of a Bernie
Sanders win -- we voters are going to have to fight tooth-and-nail to guarantee our votes are
counted and recorded correctly!
While I don't have any real problem with Buttigieg he just seems a little too much like
Obama, and after 8 years of "Yes we can!" "But we're not going to." I want someone who isn't
two-faced, and Buttigieg ain't it!
Vera Gottlieb , February 5, 2020 at 11:41
Generally speaking, is it ever possible for anything to be done with honesty and integrity
in the US? Dishonesty flows through many an American vein and so many proud of it.
It seems that the Israel lobby is the one that will play the role of the "Russian
interference" in this election. I don't mean to condone their actions, but pointing the
attention on a single crook is a way to hide the failure of the whole system.
Before accepting to use an app in such a sensitive context the party should have setup an
independent group in charge of inspecting the code and conducting a thorough testing. Shadow
Inc. couldn't do all this damage without complicity at every level in the party and I suspect
that if the democrats don't carry out immediately a major cleanup of the high ranks in the
party the whole primaries will end up even more tainted that the ones that awarded the
nomination to Clinton.
R. Linn , February 4, 2020 at 22:14
Is there any connection between the the delay of the caucus results and the The Des Moines
Register and CNN decision not to release their poll of Monday's Iowa caucuses after a
potential error was brought to their attention by the campaign of Pete Buttigieg?
Buttigieg received the media spotlight 1 day prior, which may have given him an advantage
going into the caucus. Coincidence?
michael , February 5, 2020 at 17:42
Yesterday and today (62 and 74% counted) Buttigieg had a constant 6-7% lead, but Bernie
said his strongholds had not been counted. Supposedly the national DNC came in to "help"
count? Now 85% of the vote is in (from Bernie's strongholds?) and Mayor Pete's lead has
jumped to about 10%. A 3% jump may not seem like much, but when it occurs in only 10% of the
counted votes, Buttigieg would have had to receive 30% more votes than Bernie. Coincidence?
Bad optics at a minimum, given the DNC's predilection for corruption, very suspicious.
Jane , February 5, 2020 at 22:12
No coincidence. The DNC, via the Iowa Dems, via Mayor Cheat, are doing everything they can
to steal this election away from the people's choice. It WOULD have looked a little strange
to have had the Des Moines Register poll showing Bernie Sanders the obvious leader a day
ahead of the caucus, followed by Mayor Cheat winning it. Crooked. Crooked. Crooked. All of
it.
Daniel , February 6, 2020 at 14:40
Judging on his debate performances, donor-related flip flops on the issues and the general
smug tone of his Obam-ish politi-speak, I'd say Buttigieg's pretty well exposed himself as
the power monger that he is, willing to do or say anything to get what he wants. A terrible
candidate by every stretch. Considering his time on the national stage, it's easy to imagine
his deliberately sabotaging Iowa, thinking he'd get away with it. To my eye, there's
something off about the man, pathological perhaps; his brazen grasps for attention, his
casual disregard of the truth, his staggering arrogance. He may have stolen Iowa, but he'll
never get an ounce of support frome.
robert e williamson jr , February 4, 2020 at 21:40
No matter which major American political party it is, never underestimate the danger of
large groups of stupid people especially when they work with Israeli lobbyist.
I for one have seem plenty enough of the love dance of death ( dancing to the music of the
rapture ) between Natinyahoo and the large orange blob. And I damned sure don't want to the
culmination in my front yard.
But, hey, ain't the markets doing great!
Hans Zandvliet , February 4, 2020 at 21:13
Since we're now living in a post-evidence era, the actual voting results don't matter
anymore.
Anyone declaring himself the winner of an election, actually becomes the winner, if his claim
gets the support of the MSM presstitutes.
My advice to all Americans is to vote with your feet: stay at home! Preserve your own dignity
by turning down this voting scam. Refuse to vote. Show those swamp creatures that they've
lost all legitimacy with an election turnout of 0.00% of all voters
In any case, it does not matter anymore whoever gets to sit in that white house somewhere
in D.C.: Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, whoever; the wars will continue anyway, just like the
pillaging of the lower and middle classes.
So the best way to vote is to not vote at all.
Will , February 5, 2020 at 11:26
Yes, by all means stay home which is exactly what most Americans do and have been doing
for years .look how brilliantly it has worked!
DW Bartoo , February 5, 2020 at 14:34
So, Will, do you think that all U$ians of voting age should be required, by law, to
vote?
Would that not necessitate the option of "None of the Above"?
You know, in case the choices were appallingly awful and only promised "More of the $ame",
only reflected perpetual war, corporations as "people", money as "speech", a two-tiered
"legal" system where the poor went to jail and the rich, bankers for example, were bailed out
for committing fraud, and torture was held to be merely a "policy difference", where money
making money was taxed (if at all) at a much lower rate than "earned income, you know as the
result of actual work, where the media were corporate owned whores who dutifully
propagandized the lies used to take the nation to war or unleash its "beautiful" weapons and
so on?
Or would you simply insist that there was NO option but to vote for team blue or team
red?
With all those who do dutifully vote, have been dutifully partisan, have voted for lesser
(if more effective) evil candidates, for many years, for decades, how do you explain the
current state of affairs?
Clearly, if voting is the sole measure of democratic engagement, then it has not had much
capacity to change much of anything beyond what money and power has deemed to be in THEIR
best "interest", to their profit and dominance.
Perhaps, just perhaps, the real problem is that no actual democracy has heretofore really
existed in this exceptional and indispensable nation?
Perhaps it is all a sham and the "franchise" is a controlled and managed means of
manufacturing "consent" such that the few can have their way despite the cost and harm to the
many?
And, just perhaps, all those whose lack of "participation" you decry so vehemently have
come to understand that, as Mother Jones (or Helen Keller) pointed out, if voting could
change anything, if it could make a real difference, then it would be illegal
Indeed, if you really favor voting then why should there be any need of "representatives"
and the Founder's fear of "mob rule"?
Do not both those things get in the way of real, participatory democracy?
Of course, the problem with participatory democracy is that political saviors would go out
of vogue, for then each citizen would truly bear responsibility for the nature of society and
all that was done in their name.
Are we "there" yet?
Or are we just a "republic" and not a real "democracy", in fact simply a military empire
where citizens are meant to be but patriotic consumers of myth and bluster, of hegemony and
bombast, whose task, every two or four years, IS but to cheer and vote for more of the
same?
What bothers you about this nation that you blame those who you feel have not "bothered"
to vote?
Is it a politician, a political wing of the war and money party?
Or is it something larger?
Perhaps systemic failure?
Perhaps economic insanity?
Possibly the plight of the many?
What is your beef with those who consider that voting seems ineffective, or even useless
in terms of generating policies that would improve their lives and those of whom they
love?
Or is that something you would not be comfortable with?
Just curious.
Skip Scott , February 7, 2020 at 08:55
DW-
Excellent response to Will.
I do make it a point to vote, but only for a "peace" candidate, which usually means third
party by the General Election.
Mr Blumenthal makes it evident that the rich and powerful will be very active during this
election year, and that Mr.Sanders and Ms. Warren will be thwarted at every opportunity. The
only unknown are those young voters, who are not as vulnerable to MSM methods of persuasion.
I am hopeful that they have amassed the numbers to impact the selection of the Democratic
nominee or to empower a viable third party candidacy. It is highly unlikely that the
Democratic Party apparatus would be removed by anything less than an overwhelming popular
uprising.
Susan , February 5, 2020 at 04:44
I would go for the "overwhelming popular uprising". Solidarity, common cause and urgent
need for aloha and cooperation are needed in order for us to stand together for Justice and
guide her to course. Resist evil.
Will , February 5, 2020 at 11:30
Speaking of Warren pretty savvy of the NYTs to endorse Warren *and* Klobuchar in an
attempt to make sure neither Warren nor Sanders win. A kiss of death combined with a divide
and conquer
dean 1000 , February 4, 2020 at 20:39
If the guilty software was not given a couple of test runs the day before the caucus
something is terribly wrong.
How many test runs and how did the app preform in each test?
Whatever the outcome of the first tally there should be a hand recount where every ballot
is projected on a wall or screen so TV viewers can count the number of ballots and the tally
for each candidate, along with the official counters.
In every city that has cable TV there is a channel reserved for city council meetings.
Those TV stations can cover the recount from the first ballot to the last. The commercial
stations must make a living broadcasting advertisements but can give their viewers periodic
updates. Doesn't matter how long it takes. Accuracy is more important than speed. Especially
a recount. Iowa democrats you owe it to the country to do another count. If it serves no
other function it could deter future skullduggery and vote stealing. Don't leave voters
harboring suspicions. It could reduce democratic turnout.
Len , February 4, 2020 at 19:52
Who would have guessed!
Len
KiwiAntz , February 4, 2020 at 17:13
If you had any doubts that America & it's so called Democracy is nothing more than a
badly run, Banana Republic, the IOWA primary is a microcosm of this Political charade?
Shamelessly rigged by a desperate DNC, to sabotage Bernie Saunders campaign & minimise
his IOWA win result & the Media bump this would have given his Campaign, this disgusting
behaviour demonstrates that the fix was in, once again, to deny Bernie any chance of being
the preferred Presidential Candidate, starting in IOWA? And who better to blame but the
Democratic Party's "go to" bogeyman to explain away this public relations disaster by once
again claiming "It was RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA" who are responsible for this debacle? Pathetic
& sad. Bernie is being screwed again by the same idiots who lost the previous
Presidential race to a bankrupt Reality TV Star & are going to blow the 2020 Campaign as
well by picking another lousy Candidate? Bernie is the only man that can beat Trump! Stop the
nonsense DNC & listen to the voters who want Bernie, not Corporate stooges!
Aussidawg , February 5, 2020 at 17:00
That's the scary thing Kiwi, not only does the DNC not care about the wishes of the voters
the establishment Dems such as Pelosi, Schumer, Hoyer, et al don't care either as is more
often than not reflected in how they vote on important legislation. The establishment Dems
simply will not support anything that might endanger the flow of corporate/billionaire
campaign contributions into their re-election coffers. The bottom line is these people will
always vote the way that will personally benefit them country and constituents be damned.
Bernie Sanders poses a direct threat to that continued inflow of campaign donations since
much of his proposed legislation will take away tax cuts and impose progressive taxation that
the ruling elites have enjoyed and paid for via campaign donations (legal bribes) ever since
Reagan was elected. The whole reason the establishment politicians fear Bernie is because he
is honest, has integrity and can't be bought. He truly believes in representing his
constituents which makes him a rare politician that poses a true threat to the ruling
elites.
GO BERNIE SANDERS – 2020
Marko , February 4, 2020 at 16:34
" The delay in reporting is the result of a failed app ."
So far , I'd say the app has been wildly successful , and we still haven't seen the final
results. If the purpose was to dilute the impact of Bernie's victory , mission accomplished.
If the app was a man-in-the-middle mechanism designed to steal the election outright , it may
yet succeed at that , as well. Mayor Pete Guaido seems to think that will be the outcome.
Half the results will be announced today at 5 PM EST , ( I'd expect those results to show a
razor-close race between Bernie and Pete ) allowing time for evaluating public reaction to
see if a blatant theft would be accepted when final tallies are released.
Realist , February 4, 2020 at 15:50
Mayor B was just taking a page from Venezuela's "president" Juan Guaido, who got such good
advice from the CIA. If you can't win, just create some chaos and declare yourself in
charge.
Frankly, what this fiasco suggests to me is that, in the real world, Bernie won the actual
vote in a landslide and these are the "corrective" measures by the Democratic establishment.
However, if the coders did their jobs "right," no one will ever know. Plus it creates one
more malefaction to blame on Putin don'tcha know and more reason to prefer a war-mongering
hard right-wing Democratic Party. Meh, 2016 redux so far.
AnneR , February 5, 2020 at 09:13
These have pretty much been my thoughts on this whole imbroglio: Sanders was all too
clearly winning the IA primary and the DNC and its plutocratic supporters balked, so created
this "chaos" in order to deny him his win.
John Neal Spangler , February 4, 2020 at 15:03
Looks like fanatical pro-settler hard right pro-Israelis want to throw election to Trump.
When the app failed the Iowa dems had no back up methods of communicating, like emails,
telephones, or telegrams? Looks like the DNC brought out the clown car and said VOTE
TRUMP.
Skip Scott , February 4, 2020 at 14:52
Why would we need the Russians to meddle in our election process? This year's democratic
primaries are going to be something else. The party is in its death throes.
DW Bartoo , February 4, 2020 at 14:03
I was hoping that Consortium News would publish this article.
While it must be understood that much of what this article reveals will not reach the eyes
or ears, will not cross the thought threshold of most U$ians, it is nonetheless of very
significant import.
It points to the manipulation (the manufacturing) of "consent", it pulls the curtains from
the behind-the-scenes mechanations of Big Money and the petty jiggering of candidates within
the context of big-time political maneuvering in such a fashion that international
connections, influence peddling, and vested interests are exposed as ubiquitous and
"business" as usual, call it corruption, in an "electoral" process whose principal purpose is
convince the many that actual democracy exits, that voting makes a difference, that the many
matter, and that politicians actually care about the lives and well-being of those many.
We are told that the debacle in Iowa diminishes the "trust" that the many have of "the
system", of the political process, indeed of all the many myths of U$ exceptionalism, of U$
moral virtue and the righteousness of U$ military "intervention" for "humanitarian" purposes
and so on.
In 2016, the DNC made clear that the Democratic Party is a private club, that can change
its rules (as it recently has done for Bloomberg), can ignore the popular will and substitute
its own choices as candidates, and has NO obligation to conduct itself in a "fair", "open",
or even consistent fashion, that it can resort to "smoke-filled rooms" decisions whenever it
chooses and has every reason to assume that ALL who choose to consider voting for Democrats
fully comprehend that the process is "rigged", dishonest, and graft and grift driven.
The Dems are but one of the two right wings of the war and money party, the Republicans
the other.
Both wings exist to serve the donor class,
Not "their" donor class, but the whole international (globalist) financial class.
Would it not be wise to consider the very real likelihood that neither of these two wings
has any real interest in serving the many, here in the U$, or anywhere else in the world?
That is to say, given the current reality, who can possibly imagine that the many can or
may vote their way out of perpetual war, out of wealth inequality, out of for-profit
healthcare, or propagandistic media owned by the financial (corporate) class?
If voting is simply a rite, an empty ritual designed not to change anything in meaningful
fashion, but merely to provide the appearance but not substance of democracy, then how may it
be believed that voting is anything other than passive acquiescence to a tyranny of deceit
and population management, especially when leading intellectual "lights" admonish a third
party, the Green Party, to effectively neuter itself because only the existing sham is
possible?
We live in most interesting times, a time fraught with existential issues too long
ignored, and quite unlike any others time in human history.
Can or will a pretend democracy, a bogus electoral system owned by a mere handful of
"interests" of obscenely wealthy individuals and administered by sycophantic lap dogs, come
to any honest grips with environmental collapse or nuclear Armageddon when the owners and
their lackeys, as well as the upper "middle" class profit directly from those existential
threats?
Might it not be time to think beyond the two and four year spectacles, beyond the horse
race of personality, brand, spin, and media love-(and hate)-fest?
Might our time require more of us than dutifully going along to get along with the
insanity?
Might it not be time to ponder how we might build a sustainable and humane human society
that need not destroy the ability of the planet to support life simply to allow somewhat more
than two thousand individuals to live like tyrannical "royalty"?
Who still believes or thinks that we can vote our way out of corruption and destruction
when the only permitted choice is "More of the Same"?
Lesser weevil voting?
That only ensures that the "same" becomes more virulent, more vicious, and more
powerful.
Skip Scott , February 7, 2020 at 09:08
I think one of the most important things the average person can do to change the world is
to examine their consumer and investment choices. Everyone who pays a cable bill and sits
hypnotized for hours each day in front of the "idiot box" is feeding the beast and becoming a
compliant victim rather than an active citizen. Lifestyle choices matter.
I choose to vote each election because the Oligarchy loves low voter turnout as
confirmation of the masses feeling powerless and complacent to whatever the elite chooses. We
also have "propositions" here in Arizona that provide an opportunity for engaging in "direct"
democracy.
Daniel , February 4, 2020 at 14:03
Can this DNC ineptitude and the actions of Buttigieg, who is associated with and brazenly
trying to benefit from it, even be considered conspiracy theory anymore? When the net result
is the same? You'll never convince me that the Iowa debacle wasn't a purposeful event, or
that Buttigieg's complaint about the poll last week – whose results were thwarted as a
result – weren't coordinated efforts to squash Sanders' momentum.
We know from reliable reporting that Buttigieg sold his soul long ago (if he has one) to
the devils of Wall Street, the tech industry, and the intelligence agencies. And, whether he
participated in deliberate sabotage in the two instances above or not, his brazen attempt to
'shape the narrative' and benefit from them is sickening enough.
Buttigieg and the like are facilitating and benefitting from a new and dangerous marriage
between good old fashioned American propaganda and 21st century technological trickery to win
elections that, in any just system, they'd never come close to winning.
I pray to God we are nearing the moment when thinking people finally abandon these frauds,
hypocrites, thieves and charlatans en masse once and for all.
Eugenie Basile , February 4, 2020 at 13:34
The DNC has put all its know-how in the Impeachment of Trump and now they can't even count
300.000 votes anymore
Shooting yourself in the foot or rather in both feet while shouting Trump is unfit to be
president.
plantman , February 4, 2020 at 13:03
Excellent report!
The influence of private money in the Democratic party is shocking.
Forget Russia -- The problem is much closer to home.
Stan W. , February 4, 2020 at 12:58
But this is Iowa, the land of hard-working farmers and factory workers. Are we sure it's
not Chicago we're talking about?
Jeff Harrison , February 4, 2020 at 12:34
ROTFLMAO. And here I thought the Republicans were incompetent!
Drew Hunkins , February 4, 2020 at 12:19
They deprived Bernie of his moment.
This Iowa fiasco was all orchestrated by the corporate-Wall Street Dems to preempt Bernie.
The last thing they wanted was Bernie giving a raucous populist victory speech live to the
entire world. It would have focused solely on progressive-populist bread and butter issues
which would have fired up the entire nation. This is a theft that should not go
unpunished.
If Tom Perez has any integrity he'd resign by lunch time today.
Former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg seemed perfect, a man who defended the
principle of wine-based fundraisers with military effrontery. New York magazine made his case
in a cover story the magazine's Twitter account summarized as:
"Perhaps all the Democrats need to win the presidency is a Rust Belt millennial who's gay
and speaks Norwegian."
(The "Here's something random the Democrats need to beat Trump" story became an important
literary genre in 2019-2020, the high point being Politico's "Can the "F-bomb save Beto?").
Buttigieg had momentum. The flameout of Biden was expected to help the ex-McKinsey
consultant with "moderates." Reporters dug Pete; he's been willing to be photographed holding a
beer and wearing a bomber jacket, and in Iowa demonstrated what pundits call a "killer
instinct," i.e. a willingness to do anything to win.
Days before the caucus, a Buttigieg supporter claimed Pete's name had not been read out in a
Des Moines Register poll, leading to the pulling of what NBC called the "gold standard" survey.
The irony of such a relatively minor potential error holding up a headline would soon be laid
bare.
However, Pete's numbers with black voters (he polls at zero in many states) led to multiple
news stories in the last weekend before the caucus about "concern" that Buttigieg would not be
able to win.
Who, then? Elizabeth Warren was cratering in polls and seemed to be shifting strategy on a
daily basis. In Iowa, she attacked "billionaires" in one stop, emphasized "unity" in the next,
and stressed identity at other times (she came onstage variously that weekend to Dolly Parton's
"9 to 5" or to chants of "It's time for a woman in the White House"). Was she an outsider or an
insider? A screwer, or a screwee? Whose side was she on?
A late controversy involving a story that Sanders had told Warren a woman couldn't win
didn't help. Jaimee Warbasse planned to caucus with Warren, but the Warren/Sanders "hot mic"
story of the two candidates arguing after a January debate was a bridge too far. She spoke of
being frustrated, along with friends, at the inability to find anyone she could to trust to
take on Trump.
"It's like we all have PTSD from 2016," she said. "There has to be somebody."
... ... ...
What happened over the five days after the caucus was a mind-boggling display of
fecklessness and ineptitude. Delay after inexplicable delay halted the process, to the point
where it began to feel like the caucus had not really taken place. Results were released in
chunks, turning what should have been a single news story into many, often with Buttigieg "in
the lead."
The delays and errors cut in many directions, not just against Sanders. Buttigieg,
objectively, performed above poll expectations, and might have gotten more momentum even with a
close, clear loss, but because of the fiasco he ended up hashtagged as #MayorCheat and lumped
in headlines tied to what the Daily Beast called a "Clusterfuck."
Though Sanders won the popular vote by a fair margin, both in terms of initial preference
(6,000 votes) and final preference (2,000), Mayor Pete's lead for most of the week with "state
delegate equivalents" -- the number used to calculate how many national delegates are sent to
the Democratic convention -- made him the technical winner in the eyes of most. By the end of
the week, however, Sanders had regained so much ground, to within 1.5 state delegate
equivalents, that news organizations like the AP were despairing at calling a winner.
This wasn't necessarily incorrect. The awarding of delegates in a state like Iowa is
inherently somewhat random. If there's a tie in votes in a district awarding five delegates, a
preposterous system of coin flips is used to break the odd number. The geographical calculation
for state delegate equivalents is also uneven, weighted toward the rural. A wide popular-vote
winner can surely lose.
But the storylines of caucus week sure looked terrible for the people who ran the vote. The
results released early favored Buttigieg, while Sanders-heavy districts came out later. There
were massive, obvious errors. Over 2,000 votes that should have gone to Sanders and Warren went
to Deval Patrick and Tom Steyer in one case the Iowa Democrats termed a "minor error." In
multiple other districts (Des Moines 14 for example), the "delegate equivalents" appeared to be
calculated incorrectly, in ways that punished all the candidates, not just Sanders. By the end
of the week, even the New York Times was saying the caucus was plagued with "inconsistencies
and errors."
Emily Connor, a Sanders precinct captain in Boone County, spent much of the week checking
results, waiting for her Bernie-heavy district to be recorded. It took a while. By the end of
the week, she was fatalistic.
"If you're a millennial, you basically grew up in an era where popular votes are stolen,"
she said.
"The system is riddled with loopholes."
Others felt the party was in denial about how bad the caucus night looked.
"They're kind of brainwashed," said Joe Grabinski, who caucused in West Des Moines.
"They think they're on the side of the right they'll do anything to save their
careers.
An example of how screwed up the process was from the start involved a new twist on the
process, the so-called "Presidential Preference Cards."
In 2020, caucus-goers were handed index cards that seemed simple enough. On side one, marked
with a big "1," caucus-goers were asked to write in their initial preference. Side 2, with a
"2," was meant to be where you wrote in who you ended up supporting, if your first choice was
not viable.
The "PPCs" were supposedly there to "ensure a recount is possible," as the Polk County
Democrats put it. But caucus-goers didn't understand the cards.
Morgan Baethke, who volunteered at Indianola 4, watched as older caucus-goers struggled.
Some began filling out both sides as soon as they were given them.
Therefore, Baethke says, if they do a recount, "the first preference should be accurate."
However, "the second preference will be impossible to recreate with any certainty."
This is a problem, because by the end of the week, DNC chair Tom Perez -- a triple-talking
neurotic who is fast becoming the poster child for everything progressives hate about modern
Dems -- called for an "immediate recanvass." He changed his mind after ten hours and said he
only wanted "surgical" reanalysis of problematic districts.
No matter what result emerges, it's likely many individual voters will not trust it. Between
comical videos of apparently gamed coin-flips and the pooh-poohing reaction of party officials
and pundits (a common theme was that "toxic conspiracy theories" about Iowa were the work of
the Trumpian right and/or Russian bots), the overall impression was a clown show performance by
a political establishment too bored to worry about the appearance of impartiality.
"Is it incompetence or corruption? That's the big question," asked Storey.
@humphrey@humphrey
came bursting forth! "I can stand here and blow smoke up your ass and you don't even know
I'm doing it!" What a dumass! I can't even stand to hear his voice.
But it didn't work so well.
This is the single most important moment in the debate tonight.
In fact, I think it was the most brilliant moderator moment from ANY debate, thanks to
@LinseyDavis .
#3 #3
came bursting forth! "I can stand here and blow smoke up your ass and you don't even
know I'm doing it!" What a dumass! I can't even stand to hear his voice.
by saying that increased drug arrests were used to 'target' Black gang violence, which if
you think about it, is pretty much the same pretext Richard Nixon used to
START the Drug War in the first place.
At the time, I was writing a book about the politics of drug prohibition. I started to ask
Ehrlichman a series of earnest, wonky questions that he impatiently waved away. "You want to
know what this was really all about?" he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public
disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. "The Nixon campaign in
1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black
people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either
against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana
and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those
communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and
vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs?
Of course we did. "
Pete is continuing the corrosive Nixonian conflation of drugs, Black people and violence,
even as he calls for decriminalization of opioids for his poppy growing pals in
Afghanistan.
What a creep.
But it didn't work so well.
This is the single most important moment in the debate tonight.
In fact, I think it was the most brilliant moderator moment from ANY debate, thanks to
@LinseyDavis .
Bill Maher interviewed Pete Buttigieg a few days ago on January 31, 2019. Bill Maher said,
"You are the only military veteran in this."
Buttigieg nodded along and said, "Yeah."
It was a critical test of character for Mayor Pete, and Buttigieg showed his true colors.
Instead of acknowledging Major Tulsi Gabbard -- the first female combat veteran to ever run for
the presidency, who volunteered to deploy twice to the warzones of the Middle East at the
height of the war, who has served in the Army National Guard for 17 years and is still serving
today -- Buttigieg chose to allow the audience to believe the falsehood that he was the only
military veteran running for president because it benefits him politically.
Furthermore, when Buttigeig's campaign posted the interview on social media, they chose to
cut out the first part of Maher's statement (i.e.
"You are the only military veteran in this.") C'est un arriviste : mon opinion
Before I dive into Shortest Way Home's account of the life and career of Peter Buttigieg,
let me be up front about my bias. I don't trust former McKinsey consultants. I don't trust
military intelligence officers. And I don't trust the type of people likely to appear on "40
under 40" lists, the valedictorian-to-Harvard-to-Rhodes-Scholarship types who populate the
American elite. I don't trust people who get flattering reams of newspaper profiles and are
pitched as the Next Big Thing That You Must Pay Attention To, and I don't trust wunderkinds who
become successful too early. Why? Because I am somewhat cynical about the United States
meritocracy. Few people amass these kind of résumés if they are the type to
openly challenge authority. Noam Chomsky says that the factors predicting success in our
"meritocracy" are a "combination of greed, cynicism, obsequiousness and subordination, lack of
curiosity and independence of mind, [and] self-serving disregard for others." So when
journalists see "Harvard" and think "impressive," I see it and think "uh-oh."
Posted by: The Beaver |
07 February 2020 at 02:03 PM DNC and Media have black balled Gabbard.
Thrashing Kamala and Hillary is an unforgivable sin for the current DNC.
Democratic party is poorly served by DNC corruption and incompetence.
The top of their ticket reminds me of the decrepit party hacks the politburo put forward in the
early 80s.
Moral and intellectual bankrupt.
Noting that McCain and Romney were the previous GOP nominees does not inspire confidence
either
Posted by: sbin |
07 February 2020 at 02:23 PM I'm not normally into conspiracy theories, but I am suspicious
of his direct commission into Naval intelligence. His educational background and a few other
things makes me think he might be a CIA stooge.
And yes, pretty dishonest and arrogant to not mention Tulsi.
Posted by: Eric Newhill |
07 February 2020 at 02:36 PM I had heard Mayor Pete had been an engineer in the military
but in a The Atlantic interview he says he was Naval Intelligence. He also spent time as a
consultant for McKinsey in the Afghanistan but in neither case was he in much danger--unlike
Tulsi.
In his own words: "Four years later, Buttigieg would return to Afghanistan as a Naval
intelligence officer. He stayed on bases for the most part, venturing out only as an armed
escort on an occasional trip. On the McKinsey work, they were outside the wire more, but "there
was no moment of great adventure or danger for me, other than just the fact of we drove from
Kabul to Jalalabad. That was a little risky. But in Iraq we were on base, or at least in the
Green Zone, almost all the time."
How does a mayor of a small mid-west town wake up one day and decide he is qualified to run
for the highest political office in the land and believe he can win. He's either insane or has
friends inm high places. After the fudging of the numbers in Iowa in his favor, I'd say the
latter.
Posted by: optimax |
07 February 2020 at 02:41 PM I have a low opinion of his personal integrity. But then I
have a lot opinion of the President's personal integrity. Its probably time saving to say who
does appear to have integrity rather than doesnt. At the moment I am prepared to believe
Steyer, Gabbard, Sanders and Yang have some decency. But I could easily be wrong about any of
them.
Posted by: Harry |
07 February 2020 at 02:51 PM Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Posted by: Ian |
07 February 2020 at 03:01 PM Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?
And it confirms a new emerging nickname I am seeing here and there for Mayor Pete . . . Pete
the Cheat, Cheater Peter, Cheatin' Pete.. .
Yes pft, the favored candidate of the DNC is clearly Trump.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 6 2020 19:25 utc | 58
Only if the ungrateful commoners who identify as Democrats or moderates can't be brought to
heel and give their full throated support for the DNC's favoured Cookie Cutter candidate who
might as well be one of those dolls with a string and a recording you hear when you pull the
string.
Then yes, they would prefer 'fore moar years!!' of the Ugliest American ever to be
installed as President of the United States.
One of things I respect about Tulsi Gabbard is she ain't no Doll with a string attached.
When she made the comment about cleaning out the rot in the Democratic Party, she left no
doubt her intent and goals. And to take on hillary, the Red Queen to boot, why that was
simply delicious.
Alas, the View, the DNC, it's web of evil rich and the media will never forgive her for
Soldiering for her Country.
Buttigieg was Navy, and military rivalry with the CIA means he's not likely to be CIA.
Also, McKinsey is a political influence peddling outfit, which is not CIA. Working at NGOs,
maybe. Buttigieg is affiliated with the Truman Project...but the Truman Project centers on
the open admission that the Iraq war was an insanely stupid strategic and tactical mistake,
and imperialism needs to be done smarter. It is not, not, not yet a principle of the CIA that
the Iraq war was a signal failure on their part. Further, the CIA finds gays pretty much as
distasteful as the average barfly, even if they feel they should be discrete.
The closest thing to a reason to believe Buttigieg is CIA is that his further was an
avowed leftist who taught the works of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramscie, associated
with the journal Rethinking Marxism. That is an ideal bio for a fake leftist fighting
Leninist Communism. The thing there, of course, is that the CIA is not a hereditary
institution!
Buttigieg believes in capitalism, just like Warren. Thus he is no good, period. The rest
is largely homophobes losing their minds.
I think Buttigieg is the honest version of Warren, saying what she would actually do,
whatever she's pretending right now. I think it is always an offense to common sense and
common decency to abuse politicians when they tell the truth. It should be the opposite.
Loving them for their lies is Trumpery.
Why are so many intelligence veterans throwing their weight behind a young Indiana mayor with such a thin foreign
policy resume?
These questions continue to loom large over the 2020 Democratic primary field: Who
is Pete Buttigieg? And what is he doing here?
Seemingly overnight, the once obscure mayor of Indiana's fourth-largest city was
vaulted to national prominence, with his campaign coffers stuffed with big checks from billionaire benefactors.
The publication of a list of
218 endorsements
from "foreign policy and
national security professionals" by Buttigieg's campaign deepened the mystery of the mayor's rise.
Buttigieg's new roster of endorsements from former high-ranking CIA officials,
regime-change architects, and global financiers should raise more questions about the real forces propelling his
campaign.
Patriot Group is currently under contract w/the US military.
They provide "contractor-owned, contractor-operated intelligence, surveillance & reconnaissance aerial
detection and monitoring support inside & outside the U.S."
Buttigieg has offered precious few details about his policy plans, and foreign
policy is no exception. His campaign website dedicates just
five
sentences
to international affairs, none of which offers any substantive
details.
Beyond a seven-month deployment to Afghanistan as a Naval Reservist in 2010, the 37
year-old mayor has no first-hand foreign policy experience to speak of.
As
The Grayzone's Max Blumenthal reported
, Buttigieg's enjoys a long relationship with the Truman National Security
Project, a foreign policy think tank in Washington, DC that advocates for "muscular liberalism." He has also taken a
short, strange trip to Somaliland with a Harvard buddy, Nathaniel Myers, who ultimately became a senior advisor to
USAID's Office of Transitional Initiatives. Otherwise, Buttigieg's foreign policy credentials are nil.
Buttigieg's lack of core principles are what might make him so attractive to
military contractors and financial institutions, two of the status quo's biggest beneficiaries.
Mayor Pete has effectively positioned himself as a Trojan Horse for the
establishment, offering "generational change" that doesn't challenge existing power structures in any concrete way.
Eye-popping payments to a Blackwater-style mercenary firm
A review of Pete for America's
FEC disclosures
found that the campaign had
paid $561,416.82 for "security" to a company called Patriot Group International (PGI), from June 4 to September 9,
2019.
Buttigieg's August 29, 2019 payment of $179,617.04 to PGI represents the single
largest security expenditure ever made by a presidential candidate, according to the FEC.
While the exorbitant amount of money raises questions, it is PGI's status as a
Blackwater-style mercenary firm that makes Buttigieg's contract so remarkable.
PGI bills itself
as a "global mission support provider with expeditionary capabilities, providing services to select clients within
the intelligence, defense, and private sector." According to the company's
website
, it offers services like
counter-terrorism, counter-weapons of mass destruction, and drone surveillance.
PGI is currently under a
$26.5 million contract
with the Department
of Defense to provide "contractor-owned, contractor-operated intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aerial
detection and monitoring support inside and outside the U.S." It is a far cry from securing campaign events held in
New Hampshire community centers.
Besides contracting with Buttigieg, PGI's only other record of
political work
was with Newt Gingrich's 2012
presidential campaign. In a 2016
Inc. Magazine profile
, PGI founder Greg
Craddock said his company stopped doing political work altogether, following a 2012 incident in which a PGI employee
on Gingrich's security detail allegedly assaulted an overzealous Ron Paul supporter.
Why the mercenary firm chose to re-enter politics for the mayor of South Bend,
Indiana remains an open question. Whatever the reason, Buttigieg's willingness to line the pockets of military
contractors as a candidate might offer further insight into why so many in the national security state are lining up
behind him.
The CIA hearts Mayor Pete
Buttigieg's lengthy roster of endorsements is loaded with former intelligence operatives, national security
hardliners, regime-change specialists, and vulture capitalists.
Among Buttigieg's most notable endorsers is
David S. Cohen
, the deputy director of the
CIA from 2015 to 2017, and a former Treasury official under George W. Bush.
Cohen is regarded as a "
chief
architect
" of the crippling sanctions that the Obama administration imposed on Iran, Russia, and North Korea --
earning him the ignominious nickname the "
sanctions
guru.
"
Pete
Buttigieg backer and former CIA Deputy Director David S. Cohen
Since leaving government, Cohen has made various
think tank
appearances to advocate for
continued use of sanctions in the aforementioned countries, as well as
Venezuela
.
In his tenure at the Treasury Department, Cohen was also instrumental in
drafting
the Patriot Act,
which restricted civil liberties and vastly increased the government's surveillance powers in response to 9/11.
Cohen has yet to speak publicly as to why he endorsed Buttigieg.
Buttigieg was likewise endorsed by
Charlie
Gilbert
, former deputy director of the National Clandestine Service, a
top-ten leadership position at the CIA. Gilbert's role was to "conceive, plan, and execute complex intelligence
operations" against "hostile target [countries]."
Another Buttigieg endorser,
John
Bair
, is the former chief of staff for the CIA's Middle East Task Force.
Dennis Bowden
, a 26-year CIA veteran, with
much of that time spent in unspecified "executive leadership positions," is also backing Mayor Pete.
The Buttigieg campaign has cited the support of former CIA senior analyst
Sue Terry
, who made a "record number of
contributions to the President's Daily Brief," during her tenure from 2001 to 2008.
Two more CIA endorsements came from former senior intelligence officer
Martijn
Rasser
, and former senior analyst
Andrea Kendall-Taylor
, who was also an officer at the National Intelligence
Council.
If you're thinking, "Wow, that's a lot of CIA endorsements for a relatively
unknown, small-town mayor," you're right – and it's just the tip of the iceberg.
More Buttigieg backers include
Ned Price
, the career CIA analyst who
resigned publicly in a February 2017 protest against "the way [Trump] has treated the intelligence community." (Price
was also a major Clinton donor, but insisted his resignation was non-partisan).
Another CIA Buttigieg endorser is
Jeffrey Edmunds
,
who moonlighted as a National Security Council member under Presidents Obama and Trump.
Buttigieg was also endorsed by
Chris Barton
, the CIA's assistant general counsel during the Clinton
administration, and
Anthony Lake
, whom Clinton nominated
unsuccessfully to serve as CIA director in 1996.
Mayor Pete's list of spook supporters similarly includes non-CIA intelligence
community professionals like
Robert Stasio
, the former chief of
operations at the NSA Cyber Center, and
William Wechsler
, former deputy assistant
secretary for Special Ops at the Department of Defense.
Buttigieg also named
Robin
Walker
, a former deputy intelligence officer for the Director of National
Intelligence, as a supporter. Walker now works for corporate weapons contractor Lockheed Martin.
Regime change hit-men and debt colonists jump on the bandwagon
Yet some of Mayor Pete's most troubling endorsements come from outside of the
military-intelligence apparatus.
Buttigieg, for example, lists
Fernando Cutz
as an endorser. For the first 16 months of the Trump
administration, Cutz was the national security council director for South America, where he led US policy on
Venezuela and was credited with outlining regime-change plans for the president.
Revealing comments from
@fscutz
, one of the key
architects of the US coup in Venezuela, declaring that the goal of intervention is to "restore Venezuela's place
as an upper middle class country"
https://t.co/jZsNLu5rWB
pic.twitter.com/2IX8d1n41P
Another Buttigieg endorser is
Jessica
Reitz-Curtin
, who spent several years in leadership at USAID's Office of
Transition Initiatives (OTI), working alongside Buttigieg's close friend, Nathaniel Myers.
OTI is the de-facto
tip of the spear
for USAID's regime change
efforts. In the case of Venezuela, OTI has
bankrolled
violent, right-wing opposition
forces for decades.
There is also plenty of excitement for Buttigieg at the commanding heights of
international finance.
Matt Kaczmarek
, vice president of BlackRock,
the world's largest investment manager, controlling nearly $7 trillion in assets, is listed as an endorser of the
South Bend mayor.
Kaczmarek
previously served
as the NSC's director of Brazil and Southern Cone affairs
in the Obama administration, when the US backed a right-wing parliamentary coup against President Dilma Roussef.
Pete
Buttigieg endorser Matt Kaczmarek, a former US National Security Council official and now vice president of BlackRock
BlackRock has massive holdings in Brazilian agribusiness, and is a major factor in the
environmental
degradation of the Amazon
region. BlackRock's practices have been so destructive to the region that
AmazonWatch
named the financial behemoth the
"world's largest investor in deforestation."
Kaczmarek is a perfect embodiment of the revolving door through which high-ranking
government employees enter the private sector and reap the rewards of policies they previously helped implement. In
2013, while Kaczmarek was crafting US economic policy towards Brazil, then-Vice President Joseph Biden was
urging
the country to open its economy
further to foreign capital.
From 2014 to the present, BlackRock has substantially increased its investment in
Brazil, according to the AmazonWatch report. Now at the helm of the company, Kaczmarek stands to profit handsomely
from the same economic liberalization policies that Brazil was goaded into adopting at his direction.
Buttigieg's list of endorsers likewise includes
Karen Mathiasen
, former acting executive US director at the World Bank; as
well as
Julie T. Katzman
, COO of the Inter-American
Development Bank (IDB). Both organizations have long histories of using debt to impose the will of US policymakers
onto poor countries.
Mathiasen, who previously served as deputy assistant secretary for debt and
development policy at the Treasury Department, was intimately involved in the administration of what has been dubbed
"
debt
colonialism
." Under this cynical practice, unsustainable levels of debt are
used as a pretext to demand that debtor nations privatize government functions, impose austerity, and allow greater
exploitation by global capital.
The IDB where Katzman worked plays a similar role in enforcing the
Washington Consensus
across the Western hemisphere. Wielding debt as its weapon, IDB policies maintain "[Latin
America's] subordinated place in the global economy," argues Professor
Victor Sepúlveda
, author of
Industrial Colonialism in Latin America: The
Third Stage
.
Empire's empty vessel
Obscure presidential candidates don't typically garner hundreds of elite national
security endorsements before a single vote is cast. So what do these spooks and vulture capitalists see in Mayor
Pete?
It can't be Buttigieg's foreign policy resume, because he doesn't have one. He
hasn't proposed any notable policies to distinguish himself from the other corporate-friendly candidates, so that
can't be it either. Some have posited that Mayor Pete may be a CIA asset himself, but the supporting evidence is
circumstantial at best.
Perhaps the most reasonable conclusion is that they see Buttigieg as an empty
vessel. Opportunistic and unmoored by ideology or political goals beyond his advancing his career, Buttigieg is the
ideal candidate for those who seek to maintain existing hierarchies. Indeed, his national security endorsement list
is filled with people who keep America's imperial machine humming along smoothly.
What is the thread that connects the CIA, USAID, and the World Bank? All three
institution exist to prop up a grossly unequal global order in which a tiny sliver of the population hordes
unimaginable wealth, while the mass of people get by on next to nothing.
At a time when that order looks increasingly untenable, with anti-austerity
protests breaking out from
Chile
, to France, to
Lebanon
, Mayor Pete makes perfect sense.
More people at Mara Lago knew that General Suliemeni was going to be hit than congressmen and congresswomen? That tells me
trump was bragging about how much power he has. He's so insecure and feeble that he has no business holding the most power office
in the land!
The main beneficiaries of Solimanies death are his arch enemies, Isis. Trump turned on both his field allies against Isis,
the Kurds and Solimani's militia. Who are America's allies in the field, now?
Let me tally this up for the wonderful viewers, an American backed coupe of a democratically elected prime minister who wanted
to nationalize the oil fields of Iran which at time was owned by Britain. The shooting down of a plane with 290 people in it by
an American Naval vessel. The backing of Saddam with chemical weapons and millions of dollars, to go to war with Iran leaving
half a million dead. The installation of a dictator whose secret police force imprisoned, tortured and killed political dissidence.
Learn your history.
All jokes aside but everyone this isnt a joke anymore becuase of our wreckless president making dumb distractions ive ever
heard of trump is a sociopath he makes the rich richer, the poor poorer. Just remember this guy and his family are banned from
having fun raisers in the state of new york becuase trump held a big fundraiser to help fight kids cancer he stole money from
kids to search to find a cure for cancer. He nearly shut down the gouverment becuase Congress refused to give him the money for
him to build the wall but not most of all 5 general from the us resigned becuase they didnt agree with his intensions. He doesnt
care about anyone but himself and anyone with common sense can sse that and im done with the US government and this isnt the American
that i grew up loving. All the hatred for eachother is disgusting and disturbing
The Iranian fiasco started in 1953 when America overthrew Iran's democratically elected government, so we could get their oil.
The autocrat we installed had a nasty habit of torturing and murdering any who opposed him, but he did sell us oil. In 1979 the
Iranians, united by their clergy, threw him out. We keep stirring the hornets nest we created and are surprised when we get stung?
Now you too can have a front row seat at this foreign policy debacle! War? We don't need no stinking war. Trump is desperate to
distract the American people from seeing how incompetent and stupid he really is.
"... Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse ..."
"... By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all. ..."
Ever since the Democratic Party abandoned its New Deal legacy and adopted the neoliberal
centrism associated with the Carter presidency and then cast in stone by the Democratic
Leadership Council in 1985, each election loss has generated a chorus of remonstrations in the
left-liberal press about the need to run "progressive" candidates if the party wants to win.
The latest instance of this was a post to the Jacobin FB page that stated: "By running
to the right, Democrats insist on losing twice: at the polls and in constructing an inspiring
agenda. Bold left-wing politics are our only hope for long-term, substantive victory."
The question of why Democrats are so okay with losing has to be examined closely. In some
countries, elections have huge consequences, especially in Latin America where a job as an
elected official might be not only a source of income for a socialist parliamentarian but a
trigger for a civil war or coup as occurred in Costa Rica in 1948 and in Chile in 1973
respectively.
In the 2010 midterm elections, there was a massive loss of seats in the House of
Representatives for the Democrats. In this month's midterm elections, the Democrats hoped that
a "Blue Wave" would do for them what the 2010 midterms did for the Republicans -- put them in
the driver's seat. It turned out to be more of a "Blue Spray", not to speak of the toothless
response of House leader Nancy Pelosi who spoke immediately about how the Democrats can reach
across the aisle to the knuckle-dragging racists of the Republican Party.
Out of curiosity, I went to Wikipedia to follow up on what happened to the "losers" in 2010.
Did they have to go on unemployment? Like Republicans who got voted out this go-round,
Democrats had no trouble lining up jobs as lobbyists. Allen Boyd from Florida sent a letter to
Obama after the BP oil spill in 2010 asking him to back up BP's claim that seafood in the Gulf
of Mexico was okay to eat. After being voted out of office, he joined the Twenty-First Century
Group, a lobbying firm founded by a former Republican Congressman from Texas named Jack Fields.
A 1980 article on Fields describes him as a protégé of ultraright leader Paul
Weyrich.
Glenn Nye, who lost his job as a Virginia congressman, his considerable CV that included
working for the Agency for International Development (AID) and serving in various capacities
during the occupation of Iraq to land a nice gig as Senior Political Advisor for the Hanover
Investment Group.
John Spratt from South Carolina was described by Dow Jones News as "one of the staunchest
fiscal conservatives among House Democrats." That was enough for him to land a job with Barack
Obama's National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform that was supposed to come up
with a strategy to reduce the deficit. Just the sort of thing that was calculated to lift the
American economy out of the worst slump since the 1930s. Not.
Pennsylvania's Chris Carney was a helluva Democrat. From 2002 to 2004, he was a
counterterrorism analyst for the Bush administration. He not only reported to Douglas Feith in
the Office of Special Plans and at the Defense Intelligence Agency, researching links between
al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, but served as an interrogator in Guantanamo. These qualifications
landed him a job as director of homeland security and policy strategy for BAE Systems when the
House of Representatives gig ended. A British security and munitions powerhouse, BAE won a
contract worth £4.4bn to supply the Saudis with 72 fighter jets – some of which
were used to bomb Red Cross and Physician Without Borders hospitals in Yemen.
With such crumb-bums losing in 2010, you'd think that the Democrats would be convinced that
their best bet for winning elections would be to disavow candidates that had ties to the
national security apparatus and anything that smacked of the DLC's assault on the welfare
state. Not exactly. When the candidates are female, that might work in the party's favor like
sugar-coating a bitter pill.
In Virginia, former CIA officer Abigail Spanberger and retired Navy Commander Elaine Luria
defeated Republican incumbents. Air Force veteran Chrissy Houlahan of Pennsylvania, former CIA
analyst Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, and former Navy pilot Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey also
helped the Democrats regain the House. Sherill calculated that moving to the center would serve
her own and the party's interests. She told MSNBC: "As a Navy helicopter pilot I never flew
Republican missions or Democratic missions, I would have had a very short career. This is
something I do think vets bring to the table, this willingness to work with everyone."
For Sherrill, a newcomer to politics, the 11th has proved to be a tricky terrain. She is
seen as a progressive, but appears wary of carrying the "Trump resistance" banner into the
fray. At Wednesday's debate, Sherrill was determined to show she is more Morris Plains than
Montclair.
There were no heated vows to fight Trump, even though being "appalled" by the president
was what motivated her to run in the first place. The Nov. 6 midterms loom as a referendum on
Trump's presidency, but you would never have guessed that watching Wednesday's contest.
Sherrill repeatedly promised to be bipartisan -- a far cry from the combative,
confrontational tone that many in the party's grass roots are demanding.
On tax policy she sounded more centrist Republican than mainstream liberal Democrat, and
she refused to endorse issues like free community college tuition, which has become a popular
talking point for Democrats and was launched by Gov. Phil Murphy this summer.
"Without understanding how that would be paid for, I haven't supported it because it
sounds like it would raise taxes on our families,'" she said.
The moderate tone puzzled some of her ardent "resistance" activists who mobilized around
her candidacy.
For Eric Fritsch, 32, a Teamster for the film and television industry from West Orange, it
was jarring to hear Sherrill oppose Democratic Party wish-list items like free community
college tuition or "Medicare-for-all" coverage out of fear that it may raise taxes. She used
the same excuse to sidestep supporting a "carbon tax" to reduce global warming.
"By going on the defensive about taxes she is accepting a Republican framing that we don't
want to be responsible with taxes in the first place,'" said Fritsch, who insisted that he
remains a "very enthusiastic" Sherrill supporter.
It should be abundantly clear by now that the Democratic Party leadership will be selecting
a candidate in 2020 in all ways identical to Hillary Clinton but perhaps with a less tawdry
past and less of an appetite for Goldman-Sachs speaking fees. Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Joe
Biden, Andrew Cuomo, et al have no intention of allowing upstarts like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
to spoil their plans, even if it means a second term for Donald Trump.
No matter. Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara urges his readers and DSA comrades to plunge ahead
trying to consolidate a "socialist" caucus in the Democratic Party. From his perspective,
working in the Democratic Party seems to be the "most promising place for advancing left
politics, at least in the short term." Keep in mind that Sherrill raised $1.9 million for her
campaign and my old boss from Salomon Brothers Michael Bloomberg ponied up another $1.8 million
just for her TV ads. Does anybody really think that "socialist" backed candidates will be able
to compete with people like Sherrill in the primaries? Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was able to
defeat the hack Joe Crowley on a shoestring but that was something of a fluke. Until there is a
massive shake-up in American society that finally reveals the Democratic Party to be the
capitalist tool it has been since Andrew Jackson's presidency, it is likely that a combination
of big money and political inertia will keep the Democratic Party an agent of reaction.
Furthermore, the takeover of the House might turn out to be a hollow victory in the light of
how Trump rules. His strategy hasn't been to push through legislation except for the tax cut.
Remember the blather about investing in infrastructure? His minions in Congress have no
intention of proposing a trillion or so dollars in highway or bridge repair, etc. With Nancy
Pelosi fecklessly talking about how the two parties can collaborate on infrastructure, you can
only wonder whether she has been asleep for the past two years.
Donald Trump has been transforming American society not by legislation but by using his
executive powers to put people in charge of government agencies who are inimical to their
stated goals. It is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse as Malcolm X once put
it. Two days ago, the NY Times wrote about how the "Trump Administration Spares Corporate
Wrongdoers Billions in Penalties". It did not need legislation to help big banks rip off the
public. All it took was naming former head of BankOne Joseph Otting comptroller of the
currency. Senator Sherrod Brown, one of the few Democrats with a spine, called Trump out: "The
president's choice for watchdog of America's largest banks is someone who signed a consent
order -- over shady foreclosure practices -- with the very agency he's been selected to
run."
For all of the dozens of articles about how Trump is creating a fascist regime, hardly any
deal with the difference between Trump and Adolf Hitler. Hitler created a massive bureaucracy
that ran a quasi-planned economy with generous social benefits that put considerable restraints
on the bourgeoisie. Like FDR, he was taking measures to save capitalism. Perhaps if the USA had
a social and economic crisis as deep as Germany's and left parties as massive as those in
Germany, FDR might have embarked on a much more ambitious concentration camp program, one that
would have interred trade unionists as well as Japanese-Americans. Maybe even Jews if they
complained too much.
By contrast, Trump is imposing a regime that was incubated long ago by people such as
Grover "Starve the Beast" Norquist and every other libertarian think-tank funded by the Koch
Brothers et al. The big bourgeoisie might not like the bad taste, racism and thuggish behavior
of the Trump administration but they couldn't be happier with the results. This is an elected
government that has fulfilled its deepest policy aspirations and that shows a willingness to
push the Democrats back on their heels, so much so that someone like Mikie Sherrill lacks the
courage to defend policies that might win elections down the road. After all, if she is
unseated, she can always go back to a job as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey. What happens
to someone working in Walmart's is not her business, after all.
I think the Democrat establishment has decided to throw Mayor Pete under the bus. This is
why Warren went after him and some donors appear to be stabbing him in the back. A
fascinating situation to watch.
Just read the same article a few minutes ago and thought of what Yves had said today of
those hired by Mckinsey, "the firm tries very hard to hire individuals who are very insecure
and want badly to do well, including at the firm."
Was driving cross country on debate day listening to NPR as much as I could stand. More
than the combined total of the last fifteen years. They played up Pete as if he were a sports
star about to wipe every opponent off the playing field. And they never mentioned Sanders by
name but included a clip of his voice saying something along the line of "of course taxes
will have to go up" at least a hundred times.
And their impeachment Dem/Donald derangement syndrome made me wonder just what kind of
drugs have they put in the coffee/water cooler.
Intentional dumbing-down of all who listen without question or nausea.
Mayor Pete's base is upper-middle-class, middle-aged, moderate-to-liberal-leaning, white
people. Which is pretty much NPR's core donor base. Their Buttimania could just be fan
service, like the most recent Star Wars movie.
It's painful for me to agree that the early efforts of so many journalists of integrity
have evolved into what you noticed today. I trusted Noah Adams despite him never pleading to
be my trusted news friend or emotional support in hard times.
so much of the bare language–nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and their linking
language is replicated by varying 'personalities' that I find it difficult to believe that
talking points are not circulated by NPR Editors hourly.
I am also increasingly agitated in my listening by being force fed soooo many stories about
Pop Culture 'hooked' to a 'news' item–like Hanukah Shopping events filed under
Religion.
Sympathy, Eureka Springs. We listen to NPR on long trips; usually the choices are
Religion, Country or NPR. Or Sports Talk Call-Ins. I invariably end up banging my head on the
dashboard (not while it is my turn to drive!) and/or screaming into thin air.
Yikes! You could get an old mp3 player and fill it up with your favorite music and
podcasts. It would completely transform your car travel experience. If you don't have a hook
up for the player to the stereo, you can get great FM transmitters for 20 dollars or so. Good
luck!
yeah.
i got out of the habit of listening to the radio a long while ago. we're in an in between
major markets place where if the wind is out of the north, we get stations from abilene and
san angelo out of the south, san antonio.
none very good reception.
only local stations(2, in different towns) are porter wagoner fans that at least have live
coverage of the ball games(for wife,lol. i can't stand it)
so i just got used to having music in my head when on the road, and literally forget that
there's a thing called "radio"..
When I was bicycling around the country, I carried a harmonica. Didn't play it while I was
riding, but boy, would I pull that thing out in campgrounds.
Never became a good player, but gawd, that little Hohner was fun!
Well when we drive the 2 hours each way to San Diego, usually at least once a week, my
wife reads the NC links and commentary. Sometimes she'll save the comments for the trip home
and get so excited when she refreshes the page and , "There are 243 comments, that should
keep us."
A two pack of Buttigieg stories, showing that all the Atlantic should be asking for
Christmas is a clue
First, they're confused about why
people in the Democratic pre-primary season aren't flocking to Mayo Pete when he's
enthusiastic about maintainjng establishment power and welcoming "former republicans" to the
fold. As if "Radical Centrism" hasn't passed its sell by date yet.
And then, they're confused about
why young people don't like Mayo Pete. Clearly it's jealousy for his success and not his
noxious ideas mixed bland centrism.
It's pretty clear Mayor Pete is running for President for two reasons. His own
gratification and to receive big payouts from donors after his time in office. He has nothing
substantial to offer to anyone. People in Indiana don't even like him enough to support him
for a state office. He hasn't done anything worthwhile in little South Bend to show any
promise for higher office either. His history and accomplishments vary between meritocratic
box checking and crude virtue signaling. He's the political equivalent of a bunch of old rich
men trying to create a boy band out of whole cloth. There's nothing there. And the people at
the Atlantic can't figure out why voters don't like him???
My interpretation of Mayo Pete is: identity politics for white, middle-aged,
middle-to-upper-class Americans.
NC linked to a poll the other day that showed that 97% of his supporters were white,
compared to around 47% for Bernie and around 70% for Klobuchar, the next highest after the
Mayor.
Most Democrats hate Republicans (true technically any vote will do when it comes to an
election, but it's often more emotional than rational and not going to be much of a selling
point to Dems, that you are attracting the other tribe they hate and kumbaya).
There is the problem of him not being qualified of course, and not likely to win. The
annoying part is centrists seem to have picked the least promising centrist candidates ever,
so if we are stuck with a centrist, it's going to be one that seems to have little shot of
winning.
Democrats hating republicans? Evidently not when they are DINOs, like Senator Peters
(MI).
But, seriously, I am tired of those in the grip of Trump derangement who say that they
will vote blue no matter who the nominee is. I just wish they would sit out the Democratic
primaries and leave the selection to people who actually follow and mull over issues.
I saw where some celebrity was defending him and his donors and described him as
"guileless ". I was flummoxed. Guileless? He may be over his head as mayor and as candidate,
but there is nothing real there.
I do look at records, but Buttigieg has always struck me as the smart kid B*ll Sh*tting
their way through an assignment when ever I hear him speak. Donors buying a Trojan horse I
get but I don't know how anyone sees sincerity.
I'd like to see a list of his accomplishments in office. What? There isn't one. Oh, wait,
apparently he was really good on fixing the potholes in the roads.
Kind of like Obama, when I encounter the faithful, I pretend to go along, and then ask
"what do you think were Obama's best three things he accomplished while in office?"
Squirming in chair, followed by vague platitudes, followed by "he would have done a lot if
he wasn't blocked by Republicans
I caught a TV news piece over the weekend that claimed Buttgag had been voted "most likely
to become president" (or something to that effect) when he was a senior in high school. That
got me thinking "Why does this not surprise me?"
Well because I had encountered exactly this type of person in some advanced placement
classes in my HS senior year who claimed that his goal was to one day become president of the
US. The word that comes to mind when I recall that guy is "insufferable". I had never
encountered anyone before that proudly displayed such naked ambition. I hadn't really thought
much about that fellow since then – until Buttgag came on the scene and I was
immediately reminded
Yes, the new Netflix series "The Politican" is exactly about one of these types (student
at a rich high school who plans to be president). Not sure yet exactly what angle they take
since I've only watched the pilot and other random bits, but it's at least interesting. As
with any good writing they seem to want to show complexities of the character.
That spec screenplay was considered one of the greatest unproduced films for many years
before it was finely shot.
Read it sometime, there are plenty of copies in circulation. It's simply brilliant.
The film differs slightly from the script, I suppose it was hard to do it exactly. There
are two different endings that I've seen. Neither is the one from the original script.
On my current tangent about proper language. I like that we are able to make fun of his
name and turn it into new nicknames. The guy's name has "butt" in it, after all. Let's free
our inner 12-year olds.
As a gay man, I call him Butt****, with all the derision normally associated with that
term. Theoretically that should be offensive to me.
Booty judge is a spook, Obama the phony pseudo-endorses Warren – the Democrat party
is going to nominate a Republican whether the plebes like it or not!
"The letter is interesting for what it says about Buttigieg's increasingly conventional
and hawkish foreign policy and the preferences of many Democratic foreign policy
experts."
"Change we can believe in" the second series ? That's a real warning sign ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and Buttigieg. ..."
"... as the neoliberal corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking ship .. ..."
So, the fact that Obama is willing to put in a good word for Warren on behalf of the
wealthy elite should give you a clue as to which side Warren is really on. While many
non-political "normies" look upon the Obama years with rose-tinted glasses, I wonder if the
disillusionment that many people had in retrospect with Obama has sunk in to mainstream
political consciousness yet. If that is the case, an Obama endorsement might actually
backfire among progressives, seeing as how it has become evident that Obama was basically a
silver-tongued neoliberal in the same mold as Clinton and Pelosi.
I know that Warren is a political careerist at heart, but I was willing to give her the
benefit of the doubt when she first launched her 2020 presidential campaign. However, it has
become increasingly clear that she has hitched her wagon to the wrong horse as the neoliberal
corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking ship. I honestly do not
think that she would even be fit to be Sander's vice presidential pick at this point
considering how wide the political gulf between Warren and Sanders actually is. A better
choice would be Nina Turner as Sander's running mate, with Tulsi Gabbard as his Secretary of
State if he gets that far.
My guess is that this is why he's working behind the scenes, minimizing the chances of a
backfire on the left. Of course, how behind-the-scenes is it if it's reported by Politico?
Still.
I'm actually undecided on Warren. There was that story last week about her supposedly
pushing Hillary in 2016 to name decent people to her cabinet if elected. But then you have to
ask why that particular story surfaced at the particular time when Warren was sinking in the
polls.
If true, though, and if what the new Politico story says about her clashes with Obama are
true, maybe Warren isn't quite as objectionable as we tend to think. Then again, she came
right out last week (I believe) and said Medicare for All would be a matter of choice under
her plan, emphasizing that "choice" factor.
So I'm confused. But maybe that's what she, her campaign and various surrogates want at
this stage.
It starts with an ambitious goal: consistent with the objectives of the Green New Deal,
the Pentagon should achieve net zero carbon emissions for all its non-combat bases and
infrastructure by 2030.
having the pentagon 'lead the fight' against climate change is akin to appointing prince
andrew as head of the global task force against pedophilia and child trafficking.
A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like
Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's
finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and
Buttigieg.
A few weeks ago I read in this spot that while Clinton people hate Sanders and like
Warren, Obama was pushing Buttigieg because Warren was such a pain in his ass. Seems he's
finally given his signal. Hopefully it's the kiss of death for both Warren and
Buttigieg.
Buttigieg takes no votes from Sanders. While Warren does on the margins. I think Obama's
calculation is simple as that. She also has special appeal to the virtue signaling liberals
that are Obama's base.
as the neoliberal corporate Democrats which she is aligning herself with are a sinking
ship ..
Bingo. Trump's letter goes right to the heart of it. These clowns are completely exposed
and Obama hawking Warren to donors while the blob talks up a gay McKinsey/CIA Indiana Mayor
shows just how far they have fallen.
Buttigieg presents himself as having had little to no impact . Buttigieg presents his
initial work, on a cost-cutting study for Blue Cross Blue Shield, as being about "rent, travel
costs, mail, and printing." Perhaps his little corner of data crunching focused on that, but
Buttigieg is being disingenuous in averting voter attention from the fact that the study was
almost certainly about cutting headcount.
In my day, McKinsey only reluctantly took on what it called "activity value" or "overhead
value" studies, which were its lingo for cost reduction assignments, because there was no way
to make much of a dent unless you got rid of bodies. 70% of most firm's costs are
employment-related and most costs, like rent, key off headcount. In other words, those
"overhead expenditures" that Buttigieg's team was tasked to reduce included employees.
McKinsey didn't like getting people at clients fired because it recognized it might be
creating future enemies, via axed professionals who eventually landed well and would likely do
what they could to prevent McKinsey from getting hired at their new home. And consultants hated
those studies too. They followed a cookbook, which meant they didn't allow the consultants to
develop or show off problem-solving skills, plus it was just plain depressing to go to client
when the people in the corridors correctly saw you as an executioner. 2
Buttigieg is proud of the monster data-crunching pricing exercise he did on his second study
for the Canadian store Loblaw's. There's a bizarre grandiosity in how he presented his role as
a still-wet-behind-the-ears consultant in the Atlantic interview: " .brought him in to figure
out how to do it in a way that would actually help the bottom line." Structuring the analysis
falls to the engagement manager. That isn't to say Buttigieg didn't improve considerably upon
the initial ideas, but it seems wildly implausible that someone who presents himself as having
to be taught spreadsheeting and doesn't have a degree in math, engineering, hard sciences, or
at least a solid knowledge of statistics, would be "brought in" as if he had pre-existing
expertise.
And oddly, he never says this big exercise was valuable to the client. There are acceptable
in McKinsey-speak ways of taking credit without violating the norm of giving the glory to the
client.
This part from the Atlantic interview is also grandiose:
By the time of the Loblaws project, Buttigieg was becoming known within the company for
being a particularly good McKinsey consultant..
This is ludicrous. He's merely nine months into the firm and he has yet to demonstrate any
client-related or project management skills. At most, Buttigieg might have gotten noticed
within the Chicago and/or Toronto offices as being a good number cruncher and quantitative
analyst.
Buttigieg also tries to depict his getting a foreign assignment as a badge of honor. In
reality, when an office can't staff a project from its own team (and Buttigieg was sent from
the Chicago office to work on an Iraq/Afghanistan project staffed out of the Washington
office), nearly all of the time, this is the project everyone else in the office turned down.
Only once in a great while is an office so busy that it can't even staff the good projects
internally. I made this mistake in accepting a London project. I got to the the office in St.
James and discovered that the partner to which I was now assigned was widely despised.
Mind you, Buttigieg no doubt learned a lot from this gig, even if it may not be want he
wanted to learn. But getting put on it didn't mean he was special.
Buttigieg doesn't adequately explain the anomaly of his bugging out to work on a campaign
.
How do we explain this?
I stepped away from the firm during the late summer and fall of 2008 to help full-time
with a Democratic campaign for governor in Indiana, returning after the election.
This is sufficiently unusual that I suspect those who have taken notice of it are likely to
have drawn the wrong inferences, so indulge me for a bit.
McKinsey, high-power professional firms, and most employers do not take well to employees
saying they want to take a disruptive break to pursue personal interests.
McKinsey is even less good about making accommodations for women partners who have children
than other top consultants; Bain by contrast has developed a reputation for being enlightened
on this front, so there's no reason to think they are habituated to being accommodating in
general .particularly for someone who has only been there a bit over a year.
Keep in mind that unlike other types of professional firms, where a young hire might join a
particular department, like the bankruptcy practice, and those partners could have the power to
run their own business and cut "their" staffers some slack, McKinsey non-partners are in a pool
and a assignment specialist (who even when not a partner has a lot of clout) negotiates with
partners as to who goes on what study. Even though the partners' interests are important, the
assignment specialist also pays attention to the so-called "development needs" of the
associates and managers, as well as other issues (like they were just on an out of town study
in a terrible location and putting them on another might result in them quitting).
Shorter: for the purpose of keeping peace among the partners, individual partners do not get
to act as godfathers with respect to associates or even engagement managers. 3
So how to make sense of this? Look at the timeframe again: Late summer-fall 2008.
The only thing I can fathom is that enough McKinsey clients saw the crisis unfolding and
stopped signing up for new work so as to create a lot of underutilization. The firm might have
let it quietly or not so quietly be known that it would consider requests for short-term leaves
of absence.
McKinsey was badly hit in the dot-bomb era and wound up reducing its staffing in North
America by nearly 50% in two years. With the benefit of hindsight, the firm might have come up
with other ways to reduce payroll when faced with sudden slack besides cutting hiring and
getting more aggressive about pushing weak performers out the door (both of which take time to
implement).
Why did Buttigieg leave? Buttigieg strongly suggests he was never serious about McKinsey,
that he was there to get his ticket punched. While that may be true, the firm tries very hard
to hire individuals who are very insecure and want badly to do well, including at the firm. And
if you really aren't that serious about your long-term career at the firm, it is hard to put up
with the indignities of being an associate, like insecure managers wanting you to do analysis
that is obviously a waste of time or who nag associates thinking that that will motivate them,
or alternatively the stereotypical bad consulting gig of being on the road all the time, worse
mainly in locations with not-good hotels and restaurants. 4
When I came to McKinsey, I was ambivalent but willing to be persuaded. I wasn't. I saw too
little evidence that McKinsey actually added value, to use its pet expression. Most clients
didn't seem to get better. Now it is true they might have gotten worse without McKinsey, but
that's hard to establish.
One fellow 'Zoid who left around when I did had these observations:
The problem with consulting is you are hired by the problem.
The most profitable clients are the most diseased.
So consulting seemed to me to be a lot like therapy, in a bad way, in that I knew too many
people who were in therapy, were convinced therapy was helping, yet there wasn't much objective
evidence that their lives were getting better (they didn't seem less anxious, or to be having
more success in their relationships or with whatever their presenting problem seemed to be).
5 At my remove, it looked as if in too many cases, the therapist had done a good job
of creating patient dependence. And I saw the same phenomenon at McKinsey.
By contrast, Buttigieg is he exhibits no reservations about what McKinsey does generally,
just some specific bad acts. From the
Atlantic interview :
He said he's disappointed in some of the work the company has done. "Since I've left," he
said, "there are at least four cases that I can think of where someone at McKinsey has done
something upsetting."
Of course, McKinsey partners have turned out to be important funding sources for Buttigieg,
so he has mercenary reasons for avoiding offending members of the firm. Nevertheless, it would
seem more genuine to come up with some reason why consulting wasn't a fit for him, even if that
reason wasn't the operative truth. But Buttigieg doesn't do genuine.
1 I don't consider Kennedy having worked for one month as a correspondent thanks
to his father arm-twisting William Randolph Hearst as "private sector experience." LBJ briefly
taught in public schools, again not a private sector position. Clinton decided at age 16 that
he wanted to be a public servant. He worked on some political campaigns and was a law professor
at the University of Arkansas (public school!) before he won his first race, for governor, at
the age of 32.
3 The dynamic can change later when a consultant has worked regularly on a core
client team. Then the client might actually start asking for a particular consultant to manage
or lead a study. The firm views that positively since consultants that get known at a client
will be contenders to take over the account later. But the earliest when clients start asking
for a specific person is at the engagement manager level, when Buttigieg was a mere
associate.
4 I was exceptionally lucky in getting way less of that than most associates
did.
5 Admittedly New York is very competitive and few people have friends that aren't
part of their professional circle. So the therapist might have filled an important role by
being a safe sounding board/sanity check.
Thanks Yves. In a few paragraphs you summed up the entire world of the big consulting
firm. It can be fun but there's a heck of a lot of misery, especially for the associates and
more junior managers. Getting assigned to a bad MD can set a career back for years and I've
seen at least a dozen times where it led to illness or leaving the firm. Or both.
The odd thing that I noticed about Buttigieg was that at times he sounds like he's trying
to oversell a flimsy resume of consulting experience and at other times sort of clumsily
hiding what he really worked on. I agree with you that he was probably told that his part of
the firm was "taking a break" before he went off to do campaign work. Otherwise it makes no
sense to lose
My basic feeling is that Buttigieg is a creation of the media. Some candidates, like Tulsi
Gabbard, Mike Gravel, or Sanders, are diminished by the press. Others, like Buttigieg, are
promoted. The hype about Buttigieg reminds me of the hype about George Bush giving Michelle
Obama some candy, or about Alito's wife crying during his confirmation hearing.
Here's a post on mgt consulting from awhile back that this post reminded me of. James Kwak
helped place the proper role of consulting projects into the right frame.
I think it helps compliment Yves' very valid questions.
The larger takeaway I'm getting is that Buttigieg doesn't come across as particularly
honest about much of anything on his resume. I know the elites of media and team dem really
want to push this guy, but he's really struggling to catch on with voters, not least because
he's hopelessly unqualified. There's no scenario where you can say:
"I was a low man on the totem pole at McKinsey" and then say, "I'm qualified to be
president" in the next breath.
The same is true with his record as Mayor of South Bend. He's admitted he's not understood
the black community and not represented them all that well, and yet, he wants a big
promotion.
This kind of resume-based critique seems appropriate to me because he's running as the
candidate who's trying to persuade the elite, PMC (prof mgr class) within the democratic
party that he's the man for the job (and tell the larger working class base of the democratic
party that they should just jump on board because he's electable) and he's not even qualified
from their own frame of reference.
What seems to me telling about Buttigieg is that he worked for the occupation and seems to
have bought the imperial cool-aid, which indicates to me that he is not that smart. Some
people, like Gabbard, have enlisted in the military, but were able to think independently and
critically about the wars.
"... On the trail, he has invoked his distinction as the openly gay mayor of a de-industrialized Rust Belt town, as well as his experience as a Naval reserve intelligence officer who now claims to oppose "endless wars". He insists that "there's energy for an outsider like me," promoting himself as "an unconventional candidate." ..."
"... Like Buttigieg, Gabbard was a military veteran of the 9/11 generation. But she had taken an entirely different set of lessons from her grueling stint in Iraq than "Mayor Pete." Her campaign had become an anti-war crusade, with opposition to destructive regime change wars serving as her leitmotif. ..."
"... After ticking off her foreign policy credentials, Gabbard turned to Buttigieg and lit into him for stating his willingness to send U.S. troops to Mexico to crack down on drug cartels. A visibly angry Buttigieg responded by accusing Gabbard of distorting his record, then quickly deflected to Syria, where he has argued for an indefinite deployment of occupying U.S. troops. ..."
"... According to John Kiriakou, a former CIA case officer, ex-senior investigator for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and celebrated whistleblower, Somaliland is an unusual destination for tourism. "There really is nothing going on in Somaliland," Kiriakou told The Grayzone . "To say you go to Somaliland as a tourist is a joke to me. It's not a war-torn area but nobody goes there as a tourist." ..."
"... Whether or not Buttigieg's trip was coordinated without the assistance of lobbyists, the trip offered him and Myers an opportunity to weigh in on international affairs on the pages of the supposed newspaper of record – and on an absolutely non-controversial issue. ..."
"... When Pete Buttigieg made his journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic Party. ..."
"... Buttigieg likely earned the fellowship after answering an ad like the one the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010 . Soliciting applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking "exceptionally accomplished and dedicated men and women who share President Truman's belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin." ..."
"... Buttigieg blended a call to "end endless wars" with Cold War bluster directed at designated enemies. ..."
"... Before an auditorium packed with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era, blaming President Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the U.S. He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in Korea, slamming the president for exchanging "love letters" with "a brutal dictator," referring to North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un. ..."
"... Trojan Horse cum Wolf in Sheep's Clothing #2. Fooled me twice, Obama; shame on me. ..."
I
n
his quest for front-runner status in the 2020 presidential campaign, Pete Buttigieg has crafted an image for himself as
a maverick running against a broken establishment.
On the trail, he has invoked
his distinction as the openly gay mayor of a de-industrialized Rust Belt town, as well as his experience as a Naval
reserve intelligence officer who now
claims to oppose "endless wars".
He insists that "there's energy for an outsider like me," promoting himself as "an unconventional candidate."
When former Secretary of State
John Kerry endorsed Joe Biden this December, Buttigieg
went full maverick
. "I have never been part of the Washington establishment," he proclaimed, "and I recognize
that there are relationships among senators who have been together on Capitol Hill as long as I've been alive and that
is what it is."
But a testy exchange between
the South Bend mayor and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during a Nov. 20 Democratic primary debate had already complicated
Buttigieg's branding campaign.
Like Buttigieg, Gabbard was a
military veteran of the 9/11 generation. But she had taken an entirely different set of lessons from her grueling stint
in Iraq than "Mayor Pete." Her campaign had become an anti-war crusade, with opposition to destructive regime change
wars serving as her leitmotif.
After ticking off her foreign
policy credentials, Gabbard turned to Buttigieg and lit into him for
stating his willingness to send U.S. troops to Mexico
to crack down on drug cartels.
A visibly angry Buttigieg
responded by accusing Gabbard of distorting his record, then quickly deflected to Syria, where he has
argued
for an indefinite deployment of occupying U.S. troops.
Rehashing well-worn criticism
of Gabbard for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a diplomatic visit she took -- her trip was devoted
to de-escalating the U.S.-backed proxy war that had ravaged the country's population --
Buttigieg attacked the congresswoman
for engaging with a "murderous
dictator."
Throughout the exchange,
Buttigieg appeared shaken, as though his sense of inviolability had been punctured. Gabbard had clearly struck a
vulnerable point by painting the self-styled outsider as a conventional D.C.-style politician unconsciously spouting
interventionist bromides.
How could someone who served
in the catastrophically wasteful U.S. wars in the Middle East, and who had seen their human toll, be reckless enough to
propose sending U.S. troops to fight and possibly die in Mexico? "But Assad!" was the best response he could muster.
The remarkable dust-up
highlighted a side of the 37-year-old political upstart that has been scarcely explored in mainstream U.S. media
accounts of his rise to prominence. It revealed the real Buttigieg as a neoliberal cadre whose future was carefully
managed by the mandarins of the national security state since almost the moment that he graduated from Harvard
University.
After college, the Democratic
presidential hopeful took a gig with a strategic communications firm founded by a former secretary of defense who raked
in contracts with the arms industry. He moved on to a fellowship at an influential D.C. think tank described by its
founder as "a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s." Today, Buttigieg sits on that think tank's board of
advisors alongside some of the country's most accomplished military interventionists.
Buttigieg has reaped the
rewards of his dedication to the Beltway playbook. He recently became the
top recipient of donations
from staff members of the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department
and the Justice Department – key cogs in the national security state's permanent bureaucracy.
His Harvard social network has
been a critical factor in his rise as well, with college buddies occupying key campaign roles as outside policy advisers
and strategists. One of his closest friends from school is today the senior adviser of a specialized unit of the State
Department focused on fomenting regime change abroad.
That friend, Nathaniel "Nat"
Myers, was Buttigieg's traveling partner on a trip to Somaliland, where the two claimed to have been tourists in a July
2008 article they wrote for
The New York Times.
Their contribution to the
paper was not any typical travelogue detailing a whimsical safari. Instead, they composed a slick editorial that echoed
the Somaliland government's call for recognition from the U.S. government. It was Buttigieg's first foreign policy
audition before a national audience.
Short, Strange Trip to
Somaliland
Under public pressure for more
transparency about his work at the notoriously secretive McKinsey consulting firm, the Buttigieg campaign released some
background details this December. The disclosures included a
timeline of his work for various clients
that stated he "stepped away
from the firm during the late summer and fall of 2008 to help full-time with a Democratic campaign for governor in
Indiana."
How Buttigieg's "full-time"
role on that gubernatorial campaign took him on a nearly 8,000-mile detour to Somaliland remains unclear.
Buttigieg and Nathaniel Myers
spent only 24 hours in the autonomous region of Somaliland. In that short time, they interviewed unnamed government
officials and faithfully relayed their pro-independence line back to the readers of
The New York Times
in a
July 2008 op-ed
.
The column read as though
crafted by a public relations firm on behalf of a government client. In one section, the two travelers wrote that "the
people we met in Somaliland were welcoming, hopeful and bewildered by the absence of recognition from the West. They
were frustrated to still be overlooked out of respect for the sovereignty of the failed state to their south."
Since declaring its
independence from Somalia in 1991, Somaliland has campaigned for recognition from the U.S., EU, and African Union. It
even offered to hand its deep water port over to AFRICOM, the U.S. military command structure on the African continent,
in exchange for U.S. acceptance of its sovereignty.
Several months after Buttigieg
traveled to the autonomous region, Al Jazeera
reported
,
"The Somaliland government is trying to charm its way to global recognition."
Founded by a self-described
anarchist named Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat represents an array of non and para-state entities seeking recognition
on the international stage. Ross's client list has
included the Syrian Opposition Coalition
, which tried and failed to secure power through a Western-backed
war against the Syrian government
.
Independent Diplomat did not
respond to questions from
The Grayzone
about whether it had any role in facilitating the trip Buttigieg and
Myers took to Somaliland.
According to John Kiriakou, a
former CIA case officer, ex-senior investigator for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and celebrated whistleblower,
Somaliland is an unusual destination for tourism.
"There really is nothing going
on in Somaliland," Kiriakou told
The Grayzone
. "To say you go to Somaliland as a tourist is a joke to me. It's
not a war-torn area but nobody goes there as a tourist."
Kiriakou visited Somaliland in
2009 as part of an investigation for the Senate Intelligence Committee on what he described as the phenomenon of
"blue-eyed" American citizens converting to Islam, traveling to Somalia and Yemen for training with Salafi-jihadist
groups, then returning home on their U.S. passports.
To reach Somaliland, Kiriakou
said he took an arduous seven-hour journey from the neighboring state of Djibouti. His junket was coordinated by the
U.S. ambassador to Djibouti, a regional security officer of the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service and an embassy attaché.
"It is not the easiest place
to reach and there's no business to do there," Kiriakou said.
Whether or not Buttigieg's
trip was coordinated without the assistance of lobbyists, the trip offered him and Myers an opportunity to weigh in on
international affairs on the pages of the supposed newspaper of record – and on an absolutely non-controversial issue.
In his bio, Nathaniel Myers
identified himself simply as a "financial analyst based in Ethiopia." According to his resume, which is available online
at Linkedin, he was working at the time as a World Bank consultant on governance and corruption.
By 2011, Myers had moved on
from that neoliberal international financial institution to a specialized government at the center of U.S. regime change
operations abroad.
Pete
Buttigieg on a pre-graduation trip with his Harvard buddies. Nathaniel "Nat" Myers is to his immediate left.
Imperial Social
Network
Nathaniel Myers' relationship
with the presidential hopeful began at Harvard University. There, they formed two parts of
"The Order of Kong,"
a close-knit group of political junkies named jokingly for the Chinese restaurant they
frequented after intensive discussion sessions at the school's Institute of Politics.
Like most members of the
college-era "order," Myers and Buttigieg have remained close. When the mayor married his longtime partner in 2018,
Buttigieg chose him as his best man.
Myers
currently works
as a senior advisor for the United States Agency for International Development's Office of
Transition Initiatives (USAID-OTI) in Washington, D.C. The OTI is a specialized division of USAID that routinely works
through contractors and local proxies to orchestrate destabilization operations inside countries considered
insufficiently compliant to the dictates of Washington.
Wherever the U.S. seeks regime
change, it seems that USAID's OTI is involved.
The
Linkedin page of Nathaniel Myers, a close friend of Pete Buttigieg's.
In a 2015 op-ed arguing for a
loosening of bureaucratic restraints on USAID's participation in counter-terror operations, Myers revealed that he had
"specialized in programming in
places like Yemen and Libya
"
– two conflict zones destabilized by U.S.-led regime-change wars. (Myers was
working as a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations at the time, but would return to USAID's OTI the following
year.)
In Cuba, meanwhile, the
OTI attempted to stir up civil unrest
through a fake, Twitter-style
social media site called ZunZuneo, hoping to turn the public against the country's leftist government through
coordinated flash mobs. To populate the phony social media platform, the OTI contracted a D.C.-based firm called
Creative Associates that had illicitly obtained half a million Cuban cellphone numbers.
USAID and Creative Associates
attempted to
place ZunZuneo into
private hands
through a Miami foundation called Roots of Hope, which was founded by students at Harvard
University. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey was even
solicited
by the
State Department to operate the platform. (Roots of Hope board member Raul Moas, who personally trained ZunZuneo
employees, is today the
director of the Knight Foundation
.)
The devious operation and its
eventual exposure revealed the extent to which covert operations historically associated with the CIA had been
outsourced to private contractors and NGOs.
And the role of the
Harvard-founded "Roots of Hope" in the scheme demonstrated how much USAID and its contractors depended on the same Ivy
League talent pool that produced Buttigieg and Myers.
A lengthy paper Myers authored
for the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
in 2015 indicated that he had
special knowledge of the ZunZuneo scheme and had been invested in its success.
Myers took the journalists who
exposed the USAID-OTI program to task, claiming that "individual grants were pulled out of context and described as
failures without heed to their actual goals," provoking an unfair "Capitol Hill pillorying."
He lamented that the exposure
of covert programs like these had forced USAID officials to pursue "the opposite of the programming most likely to
produce real impact in a hard aid environment." In other words, fear of public scrutiny had complicated efforts to
subvert societies targeted by the U.S. for regime change – and he didn't like it one bit.
To Syracuse University
professor of African American studies Horace Campbell, youthful cadres like Myers were a symptom of the American
university's transformation into a neoliberal training ground.
"Many idealistic graduates
from elite centers such as the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the Maxwell School of Citizenship of
Syracuse University or the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University among
others had been seduced" into careers with USAID contractors like Creative Associates, Chemonics, and McKinsey, Campbell
lamented in a lengthy 2014
survey of the OTI's sordid record
.
"It has been painful," the
professor wrote, "to see the ways in which the so called NGO initiatives have been refined over the past twenty years to
support neoliberalism and to depoliticize idealistic students."
Campbell's comments painted a
clear portrait of Myers, who earned his master's degree at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School on his way towards becoming
a "hard aid" specialist at USAID.
When Pete Buttigieg made his
journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that
provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic
Party.
Buttigieg likely earned the
fellowship after answering an ad like the one
the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010
.
Soliciting
applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking "exceptionally accomplished and
dedicated men and women who share President Truman's belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong
national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin."
This was not the first time
Buttigieg had dipped his toes into Washington's national security swamp. After graduating from Harvard, he worked at the
Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen that maintained an extensive
client list within the arms
industry
. (As
The Grayzone
reported
,
the Cohen Group has been intimately involved in the Trump administration's
bungling regime change attempt in Venezuela).
But it was Buttigieg's
fellowship at the Truman Center that placed him on the casting couch before the Democratic Party's foreign policy
mandarins.
A
Tablet
Magazine profile
of Truman Center founder Rachel Kleinfeld described her as a "gatekeeper and ringleader"
whose network of former fellows spanned Congress and the Obama administration's National Security Council. Her career
trajectory mirrored Buttigieg's.
She had earned degrees at
elite institutions (Yale and Oxford, where Buttigieg pursued his Rhodes scholarship) before accepting a job at a private
contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that
performed an array of services for the U.S. military
and
private
spying
for intelligence agencies.
According to Tablet, "Woolsey
positioned Kleinfeld to work on sensitive government projects the company was pursuing in the wake of the Sept. 11
attacks, including one that involved working as a researcher for the military's Defense Science Board, investigating
information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies."
When Kleinfeld founded her
think tank in 2005, she named it for the president who oversaw the detonation of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities,
threats of another nuclear assault on North Korea and the
killing of 20 percent
of that country's population. The Truman doctrine, which called for "containing" the
Soviet Union through internal destabilization and relentless pressure on its periphery, was the basis of Washington's
Cold War policy. (Following Kleinfeld's lead,
Buttigieg named one
of his two pet dogs Truman
).
"We decided there really was a
need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to really start to think about it, very much as a
counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s," she
told
The Forward
at the time.
To fill the center's
board of advisers
,
Kleinfeld assembled a cast of Democratic foreign policy heavyweights whose accomplishments included the devastation of
entire countries through regime change wars.
Among the most notable Truman
advisors were Madeleine Albright, the author of NATO's destruction of Yugoslavia and president of
an influence-peddling operation
known as the Albright Stonebridge Group;
the late Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb, who once
proposed dividing Iraq
into three federal districts along sectarian lines; former Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who
oversaw
record levels of migrant deportations
; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department policy planning
director who conceived the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine
deployed
by the Obama administration to justify NATO's disastrous intervention in Libya and drum up
another one
against Syria.
"The Truman Project mobilizes
Democrats who serve the conventional interventionist agenda," journalist Kelly Vlahos
wrote
.
"Beyond that, they are part of a broader orbit of not so dissimilar foot soldiers on the other side of the aisle."
Though he lost in a landslide,
Buttigieg won election as mayor of South Bend the following year. "Mayor Pete" had not only secured his future in the
Democratic Party, he had won a place in its foreign policy pantheon with
a seat on the Truman Center's advisory board.
Balancing Opposition to
Endless Wars
This July 11, Buttigieg rolled
out his foreign policy platform in a
carefully scripted
appearance
at Indiana University. Introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who was a fixture
on the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Buttigieg blended a call to "end endless wars" with Cold War
bluster directed at designated enemies.
Before an auditorium packed
with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era,
blaming President
Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the U.S.
He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in
Korea, slamming the president for exchanging "love letters" with "a brutal dictator," referring to North Korean leader
Kim Jong-Un.
You will not see me exchanging love letters on White House letterhead with a brutal dictator
who starves and murders his own people
@PeteButtigieg
More recently, Buttigieg's
campaign
pledged
to "balance our commitment to end endless wars with the recognition that total isolationism is
self-defeating in the long run." This was the sort of Beltway doublespeak that defined the legacy of Barack Obama,
another youthful, self-styled outsider from the Midwest who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, only to sign
off on more calamitous wars in the Middle East after he entered the White House.
On the presidential campaign
trail, "Mayor Pete" has done his best to paper over the instincts he inherited from his benefactors among the national
security state. But as the campaign drags on, his interventionist tendencies are increasingly exposed. Having padded his
resume in America's longest and most futile wars, he may be poised to extend them for a new generation to fight.
Max Blumenthal is an
award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
"
Republican
Gomorrah
,"
"
Goliath
,"
"
The
Fifty One Day War
"
and
"
The
Management of Savagery
."
He has also produced numerous print articles for
an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including
"
Killing
Gaza
"
and
"
Je
Ne Suis Pas Charlie
."
Blumenthal founded
The
Grayzone in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic
repercussions.
Before
commenting please read Robert Parry's
Comment
Policy
.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading
factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be
published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security
reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.
"We decided there really was a need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to
really start to think about it, very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s."
Blumenthal, dissected Buttigeg down to the bare bones revealing how the security state targets and harvests
willing Ivy League specimens who once sufficiently groomed are launched onto the political stage
infiltrating the Democratic Party shilling when commanded for regime change wars.
occupy on!
,
December 21, 2019 at 13:46
Breathtaking! Thank you, Max Blumenthal, and please watch your back.
Punkyboy
,
December 21, 2019 at 10:43
Trojan Horse cum Wolf in Sheep's Clothing #2. Fooled me twice, Obama; shame on me. But, then, when given
choices between worse and worser or staying home on election day . . . The only candidate with a real chance
of beating Trump in 2020 is Sanders, yet the Dims would rather cut their collective throat. Gabbard would be
my choice, but she has no chance against The Dim Machine. I am so sick of these bastards and their games –
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, now Impeachmentgate – all because they have no platform, and no candidate that
gives a damn about this country and We the People. Shame on all you poseurs!
ML
,
December 21, 2019 at 15:59
Hear, hear, Punkyboy! I concur and applaud your way with words. Google George Carlin's monologue on why
he doesn't vote. Even a committed voter may crack a smile and surmise he may have had a point! And you
can laugh about this mess in the bargain. Might as well. Too many tears and fears these days and a little
levity, especially at the Winter Solstice makes for a lightness of being. Cheers, Punky!
From the interview with Military Times that is linked in the article:
Q After one year of your
administration, what size will the U.S. troop presence be in Afghanistan? In Syria and Iraq? In Europe?
A [first sentence] The size of troop presence in any theater depends on missions determined by overall
strategy and long-term goals, which are well-developed by our political, military, diplomatic and
intelligence leaders, not by "
-- --
This is somewhat recent. Before Trump became president, the problem of straying from the script
"well-developed by our political, military, diplomatic and intelligence leaders" did not arise. Perhaps
Carter had some weird ideas like pressuring satraps in Latin America to have a lighter hand in deploying
death squads, but he was brought to the fold and eliminated from "the mainstream" without such rhetoric.
To make it clear, I also think that Trump is driven by "arbitrary or capricious decisions based on
personal or political interests and executed on a whim." But the alternative in the form that is
"well-developed by blah blah blah" is not appealing at all.
I guess that I do not need to convince the other readers, but Afghanistan is a good example if you want a
talking point. Staying there follows "the well-developed strategy", but what is it?
improving human rights, education of women etc.
fostering honest competent government
fostering economic growth (apart from consuming profits from heroin and foreign donations)
training effective and honest national armed forces and police
One could add a few, but apparently, none of that was accomplished. Yet, "the well-developed strategy"
had to deliver something important to the "national interest", otherwise it would be a total waste. It is
actually not difficult to figure it out:
Afghanistan may be a total mess, but a mess where we have influence and freedom to operate. If we
withdraw, it will be simply a total mess.
It still begs a question why "we" want to have influence and freedom to operate. Perhaps to create a
total mess nearby. Whatever it is, an alternative is overdue, preferably not capricious and poorly executed.
Tulsi for the head of NSC, DoS or DoD.
Jerry Findlay
,
December 20, 2019 at 11:37
They are trying to repeat the Obama playbook, escorting a pretend outsider and identity-firster posing as a
liberal progressive, who as soon as he gets into office betrays everything he promised in favor of the
corporate state. Why not? It fooled a lot of people before, including myself, once or twice. Why not use it
again? Because American voters have awakened to the trick and don't have time for being fooled again.
Nathan Mulcahy
,
December 20, 2019 at 10:42
Great reporting. I have a simple filter. I instinctively put a black mark on and ignore any candidate being
promoted by the corporate presstitutes. First it was Kamala Who Harris, then the Beto Who and now Buttigieg
Who. Obviously I also do not follow this so called "debate" circus.
Tim Slattery
,
December 20, 2019 at 09:36
Rare, fascinating expose of how warmongers are made. Well done, Mr Blumenthal!
Pete Buttigieg makes me think of a product, a manufactured product. Everything about him from gestures to
words.
His is not an authentic political voice.
Nor does have much to say that's interesting or helpful to anyone.
Such are efforts on the election homefront in the declining days of American empire.
Drew Hunkins
,
December 19, 2019 at 16:47
Buttiejudge, Obama and others are such professional liars. They remind me of some of my fellow students
during my grad school days.
robert e williamson jr
,
December 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thanks Max, it's great to have you out and about.
A man who looks to the Homeland Security nut cases for
money to become president must have decided he was willing t0 give up his freedom for the promise of being
safe and secure. He must be a moderate republican at heart. The country don't need another false
representation buy someone seeking the highest office in the land.
I want one of these candidate to promise they will move to go back and debate the Patriot Act before
extending it again.
Julie
,
December 21, 2019 at 14:07
All you need to know about Mayor Pete can be found on Youtube: Meet the real Mayor Pete; E. Michael Jones
on PatrickCoffinMedia. Dr. Jones is the Mayor's neighbor. Reexaminging Mayor Pete and his years in office
on Peter Hellands channel; Black Pastors speak out against Mayor Pete; CCM; Investigating of Pete & SBPD
and there's more.
I
n
his quest for front-runner status in the 2020 presidential campaign, Pete Buttigieg has crafted an image for himself as
a maverick running against a broken establishment.
On the trail, he has invoked
his distinction as the openly gay mayor of a de-industrialized Rust Belt town, as well as his experience as a Naval
reserve intelligence officer who now
claims to oppose "endless wars".
He insists that "there's energy for an outsider like me," promoting himself as "an unconventional candidate."
When former Secretary of State
John Kerry endorsed Joe Biden this December, Buttigieg
went full maverick
. "I have never been part of the Washington establishment," he proclaimed, "and I recognize
that there are relationships among senators who have been together on Capitol Hill as long as I've been alive and that
is what it is."
But a testy exchange between
the South Bend mayor and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard during a Nov. 20 Democratic primary debate had already complicated
Buttigieg's branding campaign.
Like Buttigieg, Gabbard was a
military veteran of the 9/11 generation. But she had taken an entirely different set of lessons from her grueling stint
in Iraq than "Mayor Pete." Her campaign had become an anti-war crusade, with opposition to destructive regime change
wars serving as her leitmotif.
A visibly angry Buttigieg
responded by accusing Gabbard of distorting his record, then quickly deflected to Syria, where he has
argued
for an indefinite deployment of occupying U.S. troops.
Rehashing well-worn criticism
of Gabbard for meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad during a diplomatic visit she took -- her trip was devoted
to de-escalating the U.S.-backed proxy war that had ravaged the country's population --
Buttigieg attacked the congresswoman
for engaging with a "murderous
dictator."
Throughout the exchange,
Buttigieg appeared shaken, as though his sense of inviolability had been punctured. Gabbard had clearly struck a
vulnerable point by painting the self-styled outsider as a conventional D.C.-style politician unconsciously spouting
interventionist bromides.
How could someone who served
in the catastrophically wasteful U.S. wars in the Middle East, and who had seen their human toll, be reckless enough to
propose sending U.S. troops to fight and possibly die in Mexico? "But Assad!" was the best response he could muster.
The remarkable dust-up
highlighted a side of the 37-year-old political upstart that has been scarcely explored in mainstream U.S. media
accounts of his rise to prominence. It revealed the real Buttigieg as a neoliberal cadre whose future was carefully
managed by the mandarins of the national security state since almost the moment that he graduated from Harvard
University.
After college, the Democratic
presidential hopeful took a gig with a strategic communications firm founded by a former secretary of defense who raked
in contracts with the arms industry. He moved on to a fellowship at an influential D.C. think tank described by its
founder as "a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s." Today, Buttigieg sits on that think tank's board of
advisors alongside some of the country's most accomplished military interventionists.
Buttigieg has reaped the
rewards of his dedication to the Beltway playbook. He recently became the
top recipient of donations
from staff members of the Department of Homeland Security, the State Department
and the Justice Department – key cogs in the national security state's permanent bureaucracy.
His Harvard social network has
been a critical factor in his rise as well, with college buddies occupying key campaign roles as outside policy advisers
and strategists. One of his closest friends from school is today the senior adviser of a specialized unit of the State
Department focused on fomenting regime change abroad.
That friend, Nathaniel "Nat"
Myers, was Buttigieg's traveling partner on a trip to Somaliland, where the two claimed to have been tourists in a July
2008 article they wrote for
The New York Times.
Their contribution to the
paper was not any typical travelogue detailing a whimsical safari. Instead, they composed a slick editorial that echoed
the Somaliland government's call for recognition from the U.S. government. It was Buttigieg's first foreign policy
audition before a national audience.
Short, Strange Trip to
Somaliland
Under public pressure for more
transparency about his work at the notoriously secretive McKinsey consulting firm, the Buttigieg campaign released some
background details this December. The disclosures included a
timeline of his work for various clients
that stated he "stepped away
from the firm during the late summer and fall of 2008 to help full-time with a Democratic campaign for governor in
Indiana."
How Buttigieg's "full-time"
role on that gubernatorial campaign took him on a nearly 8,000-mile detour to Somaliland remains unclear.
Buttigieg and Nathaniel Myers
spent only 24 hours in the autonomous region of Somaliland. In that short time, they interviewed unnamed government
officials and faithfully relayed their pro-independence line back to the readers of
The New York Times
in a
July 2008 op-ed
.
The column read as though
crafted by a public relations firm on behalf of a government client. In one section, the two travelers wrote that "the
people we met in Somaliland were welcoming, hopeful and bewildered by the absence of recognition from the West. They
were frustrated to still be overlooked out of respect for the sovereignty of the failed state to their south."
Since declaring its
independence from Somalia in 1991, Somaliland has campaigned for recognition from the U.S., EU, and African Union. It
even offered to hand its deep water port over to AFRICOM, the U.S. military command structure on the African continent,
in exchange for U.S. acceptance of its sovereignty.
Several months after Buttigieg
traveled to the autonomous region, Al Jazeera
reported
,
"The Somaliland government is trying to charm its way to global recognition."
Founded by a self-described
anarchist named Carne Ross, Independent Diplomat represents an array of non and para-state entities seeking recognition
on the international stage. Ross's client list has
included the Syrian Opposition Coalition
, which tried and failed to secure power through a Western-backed
war against the Syrian government
.
Independent Diplomat did not
respond to questions from
The Grayzone
about whether it had any role in facilitating the trip Buttigieg and
Myers took to Somaliland.
According to John Kiriakou, a
former CIA case officer, ex-senior investigator for the Senate Intelligence Committee, and celebrated whistleblower,
Somaliland is an unusual destination for tourism.
"There really is nothing going
on in Somaliland," Kiriakou told
The Grayzone
. "To say you go to Somaliland as a tourist is a joke to me. It's
not a war-torn area but nobody goes there as a tourist."
Kiriakou visited Somaliland in
2009 as part of an investigation for the Senate Intelligence Committee on what he described as the phenomenon of
"blue-eyed" American citizens converting to Islam, traveling to Somalia and Yemen for training with Salafi-jihadist
groups, then returning home on their U.S. passports.
To reach Somaliland, Kiriakou
said he took an arduous seven-hour journey from the neighboring state of Djibouti. His junket was coordinated by the
U.S. ambassador to Djibouti, a regional security officer of the U.S. Diplomatic Security Service and an embassy attaché.
"It is not the easiest place
to reach and there's no business to do there," Kiriakou said.
Whether or not Buttigieg's
trip was coordinated without the assistance of lobbyists, the trip offered him and Myers an opportunity to weigh in on
international affairs on the pages of the supposed newspaper of record – and on an absolutely non-controversial issue.
In his bio, Nathaniel Myers
identified himself simply as a "financial analyst based in Ethiopia." According to his resume, which is available online
at Linkedin, he was working at the time as a World Bank consultant on governance and corruption.
By 2011, Myers had moved on
from that neoliberal international financial institution to a specialized government at the center of U.S. regime change
operations abroad.
Pete
Buttigieg on a pre-graduation trip with his Harvard buddies. Nathaniel "Nat" Myers is to his immediate left.
Imperial Social
Network
Nathaniel Myers' relationship
with the presidential hopeful began at Harvard University. There, they formed two parts of
"The Order of Kong,"
a close-knit group of political junkies named jokingly for the Chinese restaurant they
frequented after intensive discussion sessions at the school's Institute of Politics.
Like most members of the
college-era "order," Myers and Buttigieg have remained close. When the mayor married his longtime partner in 2018,
Buttigieg chose him as his best man.
Myers
currently works
as a senior advisor for the United States Agency for International Development's Office of
Transition Initiatives (USAID-OTI) in Washington, D.C. The OTI is a specialized division of USAID that routinely works
through contractors and local proxies to orchestrate destabilization operations inside countries considered
insufficiently compliant to the dictates of Washington.
Wherever the U.S. seeks regime
change, it seems that USAID's OTI is involved.
The
Linkedin page of Nathaniel Myers, a close friend of Pete Buttigieg's.
In a 2015 op-ed arguing for a
loosening of bureaucratic restraints on USAID's participation in counter-terror operations, Myers revealed that he had
"specialized in programming in
places like Yemen and Libya
"
– two conflict zones destabilized by U.S.-led regime-change wars. (Myers was
working as a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations at the time, but would return to USAID's OTI the following
year.)
In Cuba, meanwhile, the
OTI attempted to stir up civil unrest
through a fake, Twitter-style
social media site called ZunZuneo, hoping to turn the public against the country's leftist government through
coordinated flash mobs. To populate the phony social media platform, the OTI contracted a D.C.-based firm called
Creative Associates that had illicitly obtained half a million Cuban cellphone numbers.
USAID and Creative Associates
attempted to
place ZunZuneo into
private hands
through a Miami foundation called Roots of Hope, which was founded by students at Harvard
University. Twitter founder Jack Dorsey was even
solicited
by the
State Department to operate the platform. (Roots of Hope board member Raul Moas, who personally trained ZunZuneo
employees, is today the
director of the Knight Foundation
.)
The devious operation and its
eventual exposure revealed the extent to which covert operations historically associated with the CIA had been
outsourced to private contractors and NGOs.
And the role of the
Harvard-founded "Roots of Hope" in the scheme demonstrated how much USAID and its contractors depended on the same Ivy
League talent pool that produced Buttigieg and Myers.
A lengthy paper Myers authored
for the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
in 2015 indicated that he had
special knowledge of the ZunZuneo scheme and had been invested in its success.
Myers took the journalists who
exposed the USAID-OTI program to task, claiming that "individual grants were pulled out of context and described as
failures without heed to their actual goals," provoking an unfair "Capitol Hill pillorying."
He lamented that the exposure
of covert programs like these had forced USAID officials to pursue "the opposite of the programming most likely to
produce real impact in a hard aid environment." In other words, fear of public scrutiny had complicated efforts to
subvert societies targeted by the U.S. for regime change – and he didn't like it one bit.
To Syracuse University
professor of African American studies Horace Campbell, youthful cadres like Myers were a symptom of the American
university's transformation into a neoliberal training ground.
"Many idealistic graduates
from elite centers such as the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, the Maxwell School of Citizenship of
Syracuse University or the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University among
others had been seduced" into careers with USAID contractors like Creative Associates, Chemonics, and McKinsey, Campbell
lamented in a lengthy 2014
survey of the OTI's sordid record
.
"It has been painful," the
professor wrote, "to see the ways in which the so called NGO initiatives have been refined over the past twenty years to
support neoliberalism and to depoliticize idealistic students."
Campbell's comments painted a
clear portrait of Myers, who earned his master's degree at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School on his way towards becoming
a "hard aid" specialist at USAID.
When Pete Buttigieg made his
journey to Somaliland in 2008, he had just earned a fellowship at the Truman Center, a Washington-based think tank that
provided a steppingstone for national security-minded whiz kids like him to leadership positions in the Democratic
Party.
Buttigieg likely earned the
fellowship after answering an ad like the one
the Truman Center published on the website of the Harvard Law School Student Government in 2010
.
Soliciting
applicants for its security fellowship, the center declared that it was seeking "exceptionally accomplished and
dedicated men and women who share President Truman's belief in muscular internationalism, and who believe that strong
national security and strong liberal values are not antagonistic, but are two sides of the same coin."
This was not the first time
Buttigieg had dipped his toes into Washington's national security swamp. After graduating from Harvard, he worked at the
Cohen Group, a consulting firm founded by former Secretary of Defense William Cohen that maintained an extensive
client list within the arms
industry
. (As
The Grayzone
reported
,
the Cohen Group has been intimately involved in the Trump administration's
bungling regime change attempt in Venezuela).
But it was Buttigieg's
fellowship at the Truman Center that placed him on the casting couch before the Democratic Party's foreign policy
mandarins.
A
Tablet
Magazine profile
of Truman Center founder Rachel Kleinfeld described her as a "gatekeeper and ringleader"
whose network of former fellows spanned Congress and the Obama administration's National Security Council. Her career
trajectory mirrored Buttigieg's.
She had earned degrees at
elite institutions (Yale and Oxford, where Buttigieg pursued his Rhodes scholarship) before accepting a job at a private
contractor, Booz Allen Hamilton, that
performed an array of services for the U.S. military
and
private
spying
for intelligence agencies.
According to Tablet, "Woolsey
positioned Kleinfeld to work on sensitive government projects the company was pursuing in the wake of the Sept. 11
attacks, including one that involved working as a researcher for the military's Defense Science Board, investigating
information-sharing between intelligence and law-enforcement agencies."
When Kleinfeld founded her
think tank in 2005, she named it for the president who oversaw the detonation of nuclear bombs on two Japanese cities,
threats of another nuclear assault on North Korea and the
killing of 20 percent
of that country's population. The Truman doctrine, which called for "containing" the
Soviet Union through internal destabilization and relentless pressure on its periphery, was the basis of Washington's
Cold War policy. (Following Kleinfeld's lead,
Buttigieg named one
of his two pet dogs Truman
).
"We decided there really was a
need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to really start to think about it, very much as a
counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s," she
told
The Forward
at the time.
To fill the center's
board of advisers
,
Kleinfeld assembled a cast of Democratic foreign policy heavyweights whose accomplishments included the devastation of
entire countries through regime change wars.
Among the most notable Truman
advisors were Madeleine Albright, the author of NATO's destruction of Yugoslavia and president of
an influence-peddling operation
known as the Albright Stonebridge Group;
the late Council on Foreign Relations President Les Gelb, who once
proposed dividing Iraq
into three federal districts along sectarian lines; former Department of Homeland
Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who
oversaw
record levels of migrant deportations
; and Anne-Marie Slaughter, the former State Department policy planning
director who conceived the Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine
deployed
by the Obama administration to justify NATO's disastrous intervention in Libya and drum up
another one
against Syria.
"The Truman Project mobilizes
Democrats who serve the conventional interventionist agenda," journalist Kelly Vlahos
wrote
.
"Beyond that, they are part of a broader orbit of not so dissimilar foot soldiers on the other side of the aisle."
Though he lost in a landslide,
Buttigieg won election as mayor of South Bend the following year. "Mayor Pete" had not only secured his future in the
Democratic Party, he had won a place in its foreign policy pantheon with
a seat on the Truman Center's advisory board.
Balancing Opposition to
Endless Wars
This July 11, Buttigieg rolled
out his foreign policy platform in a
carefully scripted
appearance
at Indiana University. Introduced by Lee Hamilton, a former Indiana congressman who was a fixture
on the House Foreign Affairs and Intelligence Committees, Buttigieg blended a call to "end endless wars" with Cold War
bluster directed at designated enemies.
Before an auditorium packed
with the national press, he rattled off one of the more paranoid talking points of the Russiagate era,
blaming President
Vladimir Putin for fueling racism inside the U.S.
He then attacked Trump for facilitating peace talks in
Korea, slamming the president for exchanging "love letters" with "a brutal dictator," referring to North Korean leader
Kim Jong-Un.
You will not see me exchanging love letters on White House letterhead with a brutal dictator
who starves and murders his own people
@PeteButtigieg
More recently, Buttigieg's
campaign
pledged
to "balance our commitment to end endless wars with the recognition that total isolationism is
self-defeating in the long run." This was the sort of Beltway doublespeak that defined the legacy of Barack Obama,
another youthful, self-styled outsider from the Midwest who campaigned on his opposition to the Iraq war, only to sign
off on more calamitous wars in the Middle East after he entered the White House.
On the presidential campaign
trail, "Mayor Pete" has done his best to paper over the instincts he inherited from his benefactors among the national
security state. But as the campaign drags on, his interventionist tendencies are increasingly exposed. Having padded his
resume in America's longest and most futile wars, he may be poised to extend them for a new generation to fight.
Max Blumenthal is an
award-winning journalist and the author of books including best-selling
"
Republican
Gomorrah
,"
"
Goliath
,"
"
The
Fifty One Day War
"
and
"
The
Management of Savagery
."
He has also produced numerous print articles for
an array of publications, many video reports and several documentaries including
"
Killing
Gaza
"
and
"
Je
Ne Suis Pas Charlie
."
Blumenthal founded
The
Grayzone
in 2015 to shine a journalistic light on America's state of perpetual war and its dangerous domestic
repercussions.
Before
commenting please read Robert Parry's
Comment
Policy
.
Allegations unsupported by facts, gross or misleading
factual errors and ad hominem attacks, and abusive or rude language toward other commenters or our writers will not be
published. If your comment does not immediately appear, please be patient as it is manually reviewed. For security
reasons, please refrain from inserting links in your comments, which should not be longer than 300 words.
"We decided there really was a need to create a movement of Democrats to stand up for these ideas and to
really start to think about it, very much as a counterpart to the neoconservatives of the 1970s."
Blumenthal, dissected Buttigeg down to the bare bones revealing how the security state targets and harvests
willing Ivy League specimens who once sufficiently groomed are launched onto the political stage
infiltrating the Democratic Party shilling when commanded for regime change wars.
occupy on!
,
December 21, 2019 at 13:46
Breathtaking! Thank you, Max Blumenthal, and please watch your back.
Punkyboy
,
December 21, 2019 at 10:43
Trojan Horse cum Wolf in Sheep's Clothing #2. Fooled me twice, Obama; shame on me. But, then, when given
choices between worse and worser or staying home on election day . . . The only candidate with a real chance
of beating Trump in 2020 is Sanders, yet the Dims would rather cut their collective throat. Gabbard would be
my choice, but she has no chance against The Dim Machine. I am so sick of these bastards and their games –
Russiagate, Ukrainegate, now Impeachmentgate – all because they have no platform, and no candidate that
gives a damn about this country and We the People. Shame on all you poseurs!
ML
,
December 21, 2019 at 15:59
Hear, hear, Punkyboy! I concur and applaud your way with words. Google George Carlin's monologue on why
he doesn't vote. Even a committed voter may crack a smile and surmise he may have had a point! And you
can laugh about this mess in the bargain. Might as well. Too many tears and fears these days and a little
levity, especially at the Winter Solstice makes for a lightness of being. Cheers, Punky!
From the interview with Military Times that is linked in the article:
Q After one year of your
administration, what size will the U.S. troop presence be in Afghanistan? In Syria and Iraq? In Europe?
A [first sentence] The size of troop presence in any theater depends on missions determined by overall
strategy and long-term goals, which are well-developed by our political, military, diplomatic and
intelligence leaders, not by "
-- --
This is somewhat recent. Before Trump became president, the problem of straying from the script
"well-developed by our political, military, diplomatic and intelligence leaders" did not arise. Perhaps
Carter had some weird ideas like pressuring satraps in Latin America to have a lighter hand in deploying
death squads, but he was brought to the fold and eliminated from "the mainstream" without such rhetoric.
To make it clear, I also think that Trump is driven by "arbitrary or capricious decisions based on
personal or political interests and executed on a whim." But the alternative in the form that is
"well-developed by blah blah blah" is not appealing at all.
I guess that I do not need to convince the other readers, but Afghanistan is a good example if you want a
talking point. Staying there follows "the well-developed strategy", but what is it?
improving human rights, education of women etc.
fostering honest competent government
fostering economic growth (apart from consuming profits from heroin and foreign donations)
training effective and honest national armed forces and police
One could add a few, but apparently, none of that was accomplished. Yet, "the well-developed strategy"
had to deliver something important to the "national interest", otherwise it would be a total waste. It is
actually not difficult to figure it out:
Afghanistan may be a total mess, but a mess where we have influence and freedom to operate. If we
withdraw, it will be simply a total mess.
It still begs a question why "we" want to have influence and freedom to operate. Perhaps to create a
total mess nearby. Whatever it is, an alternative is overdue, preferably not capricious and poorly executed.
Tulsi for the head of NSC, DoS or DoD.
Jerry Findlay
,
December 20, 2019 at 11:37
They are trying to repeat the Obama playbook, escorting a pretend outsider and identity-firster posing as a
liberal progressive, who as soon as he gets into office betrays everything he promised in favor of the
corporate state. Why not? It fooled a lot of people before, including myself, once or twice. Why not use it
again? Because American voters have awakened to the trick and don't have time for being fooled again.
Nathan Mulcahy
,
December 20, 2019 at 10:42
Great reporting. I have a simple filter. I instinctively put a black mark on and ignore any candidate being
promoted by the corporate presstitutes. First it was Kamala Who Harris, then the Beto Who and now Buttigieg
Who. Obviously I also do not follow this so called "debate" circus.
Tim Slattery
,
December 20, 2019 at 09:36
Rare, fascinating expose of how warmongers are made. Well done, Mr Blumenthal!
Pete Buttigieg makes me think of a product, a manufactured product. Everything about him from gestures to
words.
His is not an authentic political voice.
Nor does have much to say that's interesting or helpful to anyone.
Such are efforts on the election homefront in the declining days of American empire.
Drew Hunkins
,
December 19, 2019 at 16:47
Buttiejudge, Obama and others are such professional liars. They remind me of some of my fellow students
during my grad school days.
robert e williamson jr
,
December 19, 2019 at 15:59
Thanks Max, it's great to have you out and about.
A man who looks to the Homeland Security nut cases for
money to become president must have decided he was willing t0 give up his freedom for the promise of being
safe and secure. He must be a moderate republican at heart. The country don't need another false
representation buy someone seeking the highest office in the land.
I want one of these candidate to promise they will move to go back and debate the Patriot Act before
extending it again.
Julie
,
December 21, 2019 at 14:07
All you need to know about Mayor Pete can be found on Youtube: Meet the real Mayor Pete; E. Michael Jones
on PatrickCoffinMedia. Dr. Jones is the Mayor's neighbor. Reexaminging Mayor Pete and his years in office
on Peter Hellands channel; Black Pastors speak out against Mayor Pete; CCM; Investigating of Pete & SBPD
and there's more.
Leave a Reply
Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published.
Required fields
are marked
*
SUBSCRIBE to Our Free Email News
Sign up for regular email updates
First Name:
Last Name:
Email:
Optional Member Code
Search this Site
Publisher
Consortium for
Independent Journalism, Inc.
Board of Directors
Diane Duston,
President
Julie Bergman Sender
Daniel Ellsberg
Sen. Mike Gravel
Ray McGovern
Nat Parry
Sam Parry
John Pilger
Gareth Porter
Editorial Dept.
Joe Lauria
Editor-in-Chief
Corinna Barnard
Deputy Editor
Administration
Michele Steinberg
Administrative Director
Dino Zonic
Promotions
CN Live!
Cathy Vogan
Executive Producer
Elizabeth Vos
Joe Lauria
Co-Hosts
WINNER OF THE 2017 MARTHA GELLHORN PRIZE FOR JOURNALISM
Winner of the 2015 I.F. Stone Medal from Harvard's Nieman Foundation
In Memoriam Robert Parry (1949-2018)
Books by Robert Parry
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives ..."
Posted on
December 18, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. What Black calls
the New Democrats have more recently been called Blue Dogs and even (gah) frontliners, but
whatever you want to call them, they are corporate stooges loyal to bad economic ideas, most
notably deficit hawkery and austerity.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at
New Economic Perspectives
On December 5, 2019, Lawrence O'Donnell made an impassioned attack on Pete Buttigieg on his
" The
Last Word " program on MSNBC. Buttigieg's statements criticizing the Democratic Party as
historically soft on deficits enraged O'Donnell. The context was Buttigieg's effort to signal
to New Hampshire voters that he was the most conservative Democratic candidate for the
presidential nomination. Nothing signals 'responsible' so well to 'New Democrats' and the media
as a candidate screaming 'deficits' in a crowded meeting room in a small New Hampshire
town.
O'Donnell correctly pointed out that Buttigieg's claims about Democrats and deficits are
'Republican lies.' The truth is that New Democrats have been the only group in America
dedicated to inflicting austerity on our Nation. Republicans only pretend to care about
deficits when Democrats have power. Buttigieg knows this, but his political interests in
portraying himself as a stalwart emerging leader of the New Democrats caused him to position
himself (falsely) as unique among New Democrats in his dedication to inflict austerity.
O'Donnell (largely) correctly pointed out that New Democrats had been fighting federal
deficits for Buttigieg's entire life. O'Donnell stressed the New Democrats actions in 1993,
when Buttigieg was eleven. O'Donnell lauded the New Democrats for pushing austerity even when
they knew doing so was likely to cause Democrats to lose elections.
O'Donnell's dominant message, measured by both length and passion, was the crippling price
the Democrats paid for the New Democrats' pushing for austerity in 1993. He made clear it was
not a "one-off" – Democrats paid that price again when President Obama, a self-described
New Democrat, pushed to inflict austerity on the Nation in 2010.
O'Donnell describes the New Democrats (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) as knowingly taking a
"grave political risk" in 1993 in voting in favor of austerity. The risk was that Democrats,
not simply New Democrats, would lose scores of seats – and control of the House and
Senate. O'Donnell stressed that no Republicans voted for the New Democrat's 1993 austerity
program. O'Donnell explained the initial political results of austerity. "The Democrats lost
the House because of that vote for the first time in 40 years." He then explained they also
lost the Senate.
O'Donnell repeatedly explained that the New Democrats knew that their decision to inflict
austerity on Americans would likely produce this political disaster – and "bravely" did
so because of their belief that inflicting austerity on Americans was essential. He noted that
he "watched with pride" this exercise of political suicide.
O'Donnell then cited President Obama's austerity efforts – during the weak recovery
from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At a time when the need to provide stimulus, not inflict
austerity, was obvious, Obama embraced what again proved the politically suicidal option.
As fate would have it, the death of Paul Volcker days after O'Donnell's takedown of
Buttigieg extended O'Donnell's argument further back in time – to before Buttigieg's
birth. In 1979, President Carter (a Democrat) appointed Volcker to Chair the Federal Reserve.
Volcker soon unleashed powerful monetary austerity, raising interest rates to unprecedented
levels for the United States. Volcker's obituary stressed
the politically suicidal nature of inflicting austerity – and the Democrats' pride in
knowingly losing elections because of their embrace of it.
The harsh Fed policy no doubt contributed to Mr. Carter's re-election defeat at the hands
of Ronald Reagan; he had to campaign when interest rates were at their peak, and before the
inflation fever had begun to break. Mr. Carter, in his memoirs, would offer a typically
understated assessment: "Our trepidation about Volcker's appointment was later
justified."
***
"Paul was as stubborn as he was tall," Mr. Carter said in a statement on Monday morning,
"and although some of his policies as Fed chairman were politically costly, they were the
right thing to do.
O'Donnell's denunciation of Buttigieg for adopting dishonest Republican talking points about
Democrats and deficits did not discuss several essential points. The first two points emerge
from answering this question: what was the cost to the Nation – not the loss of
Democratic seats – of the New Democrats' intransigent insistence on inflicting austerity?
Shakespeare explained famously that "mercy" was "twice blest," because it blesses both the
giver and the receiver. The quality of austerity, however, is typically at least thrice damned.
It is not a "gentle rain from heaven," but a sandstorm from hell that batters the public and
punishes the politicians who unleash the whirlwind. It is at least thrice damned because it
causes three grave forms of harm on the public.
Inflicting austerity on the United States government has three likely consequences for the
public. It is likely to cause or extend a recession. It forces Democrats into an unending
series of "Sophie's choice[s]s." We cannot adopt any new program of consequence without budget
'scoring' – requiring new taxes or cutting other vital federal programs. Under austerity,
Democrats must shrink existing overall federal spending. By extending existing recessions or
leading to new ones, austerity causes economic harms that increase social and political
breakdowns that can lead to the election of fanatics and corrupt fake-populists. The political
parties that refuse to inflict austerity (at least when they are in power) will be the
political winners.
Republican fiscal policies combine "wedge" offerings to fire up the worst of their base and
massive tax breaks for the elites that fund their campaigns – leading to a recurrent
cycle in which the New Democrats champion policies that cause the public to identify Democrats
as the party most likely to raise taxes and cut vital federal programs. Republican political
power and 'wedge' legislation and policies cause enormous harm, particularly to the poor and
minorities. The larger the Republican deficits, the greater the New Democrats' urgency to
inflict austerity – and embrace political suicide. It is a self-reinforcing cycle
producing recurrent political disaster for Democrats.
O'Donnell does not address two other critical points. First, MSNBC's top commentators
endlessly warn Democrats that they must nominate the presidential candidate most likely to
defeat President Trump. MSNBC's commentators implore us not to focus on policy differences
among the candidates. Their message is relentless realpolitik, particularly, you should never
vote for the candidate whose policies you believe are far superior to the candidate the MSNBC
commentators think is most electable. MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same
prime directive – Democratic Party electoral victories are the only imperative.
O'Donnell's anti-Buttigieg rant reveals the truth about MSNBC and the New Democrats' real
prime directive – inflicting austerity even when doing so is economically irrational and
politically suicidal is their sole imperative. The obvious questions, which O'Donnell never
asked or attempted to answer, are why he and his MSNBC colleagues push the false prime
directive (winning must be the sole paramount goal) as gospel while praising the New Democrats
for repeatedly causing the Democratic Party to commit political suicide through inflicting
austerity on our Nation. Logically, the only possible answer to that question is that O'Donnell
and the New Democrats must view inflicting austerity as being of transcendent importance. It
outweighs everything. Inflicting austerity is the New Democrats and MSNBC's sole prime
directive. They are not simply willing to lose so many contests that they lose control of the
presidency, the House, and the Senate – they are "proud" to do so when the reason for
those losses is 'we committed political suicide to fight to inflict austerity.' The related
questions are whether MSNBC and the New Democrats are actually blind to the contradiction
between the real and phony prime directives and why they think viewers and voters will be too
dumb to spot the obvious contradiction. Why do New Democrats and MSNBC insist on hiding their
real prime directive?
A related question arises from this bizarre prime directive to inflict austerity even when
it is politically suicidal. Why did New Democrats and MSNBC choose inflicting austerity as
their holy grail? What is it about inflicting austerity that makes New Democrats so "proud" to
cause the Democratic Party to commit political suicide and deliver control of the House,
Senate, and Presidency to the likes of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and
Donald Trump? Preventing Bush's invasion of Iraq, global climate disruption, and Trump's
election would all make sense as overriding priorities. Those are things worthy of losing a
House seat or even the entire House.
Inflicting austerity typically harms America and our people. A federal budget deficit is not
bad. A federal budget surplus is not good. Clinton and Gore's budget surpluses were not good
for America. They were likely harmful, as recessions soon followed our prior budget surpluses
throughout our history. In each of the cases O'Donnell lauded, the New Democrats' insistence on
inflicting austerity did not simply prove politically suicidal for the Democratic Party –
austerity was a terrible economic policy that caused harm. How did inflicting austerity become
the overriding priority of New Democrats, swamping all other policies? In 1993, when Clinton
and Gore made O'Donnell "proud" by inflicting austerity, the inflation rate was three percent.
That rate of inflation was trivially higher than what the Fed would adopt as its inflation
target (2%) – the preferred rate of inflation. Even under neoclassical economic nostrums,
there was no need, much less a compelling need, to inflict austerity.
In 2010, when Obama first sought to inflict austerity on us, the rate of inflation was 2.3
percent and the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent. The economic illiteracy of his austerity
horrified even neoclassical economists. Fortunately, the Tea Party Republicans pushed so
aggressively in the "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Obama that the tentative deal he reached
with congressional Republicans collapsed. Otherwise, Obama's infliction of austerity would have
ended the already weak recovery, plunged the Nation back into a Great Recession, and caused him
and scores of congressional Democrats to lose their elections in 2012.
O'Donnell's presentation, implicitly, makes it clear that he thinks austerity is so
obviously desirable, and the budget deficits of a fully sovereign nation so obviously the
gravest conceivable threat that he need provide neither logic nor evidence to support the New
Democrat's politically suicidal and economically illiterate austerity prime directive.
O'Donnell's cheerleading for the austerity prime directive was never supported, but it has
become facially indefensible over the last quarter-century. Trump's tax reduction scheme for
the wealthiest was outrageous on multiple grounds, but O'Donnell can observe the present
unemployment and inflation rates. Unemployment is at 3.5% and the inflation rate for 2018 was
1.9% -- less than the Fed's target rate. Inflation is the only logical bugaboo about federal
budget deficits, so O'Donnell and Buttigieg's feverish fear that federal deficits are about to
cause a catastrophe is beyond bizarre. The bond markets confirm that there is no expectation of
material inflation.
The New Democrats remain transfixed by their 'virtue' and 'bravery' in losing control of all
three branches of government by insisting on inflicting economically illiterate and politically
suicidal austerity assaults on the voters – raising taxes and cutting vital services.
They refuse to act on the real emergencies we face such as global climate disruption based on
the economically illiterate fantasy that 'we cannot afford' to prevent the worsening
catastrophe. The 'New Democrats' and their media enablers demand that we nominate candidates
dedicated to enacting politically suicidal deficit hysteria policies and adopting tepid
anti-environment policies that are suicidal towards the lives of our children and
grandchildren. The most remarkable aspect of this insanity, however, is that the hucksters
pitch their embrace of their prime directive as defining the concept of "responsible." Indeed,
it is so obviously 'responsible' that O'Donnell and Buttigieg feel neither logic nor facts are
necessary to prove the virtues of austerity. They omit the fact that austerity proponents'
warnings and promises have repeatedly proved false and outright harmful as well as politically
suicidal.
Could it be that the New Democrats are not stupid or irrational at all but know what they
are doing and happily play their role in the permanent professional wrestling spectacle as
the hapless patsies who keep losing to the real tough guy? After all, they get paid
handsomely in any case.
Not only did President Carter appoint Volcker, but he also vetoed a bill to raise the
national debt ceiling. Thankfully Congress, run by a very different set of Democrats at the
time, over-rode his veto.
"Austerity" is basically the only policy Team Blue has undertaken without outside
pressure. As bad as it is, it's the one thing they can point to over the last 25 years as
something they did without mass mobilization or court cases embarrassing them into not being
totally heinous.
Then little Mayo Pete is trying to deny Team Blue their only accomplishment.
Who will pay for Medicare for all. This is the question. Because 10% of most sick patient
consume 80of all funds it is not that simple quetion. Adter all any medical insurance is in
essence putting a value of human life. Is human life is invaluable you need infinite amount of
money.
So medical system in the USSR for example, where it cane be called Medicare for all in
reality was grossly unfair to old and very sick people. They have limited funds for unlimited
demand for their services. And they tried to save first those who they consider more valuable for
the society.
So while it is clear that Pete Buttigieg is a well spoken corporate tool, his stance on
Medicare for all is not completely obnoxious.
Pete Buttigieg burst on the national scene early this year as a new sort of presidential
candidate. But it turns out he's a very old kind -- a glib ally of corporate America posing as
an advocate for working people and their families. That has become apparent this fall as
Buttigieg escalates his offensive
against Medicare for All.
A not-so-funny thing has happened to Buttigieg on the campaign trail. As he kept collecting
big checks from corporate executives and wealthy donors, he went from being "
all for " a single-payer Medicare for All system
in January to trashing it
in the debate last week as a plan that would kick "150 million Americans off of their
insurance in four short years." The demagoguery won
praise from corporate media outlets.
Those outlets have often lauded Buttigieg for his fundraising totals this year without
scrutiny of the funding sources. They skew toward the wealthy -- and toward donors with a
vested interest in protecting the status quo.
"... On December 5, while the McKinsey story was gaining steam, Buttigieg's campaign triumphantly announced the endorsement of former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan Goolsbee. When former White House officials make early endorsements like these, they're often overtures toward getting their former jobs back. Especially since Goolsbee isn't backing Joe Biden, Obama's natural heir, he's likely angling for a senior position in the Buttigieg administration. Goolsbee said in his endorsement, "It has been a while since I have seen the kind of excitement on the ground in Iowa that Mayor Pete has generated, and the last time worked out pretty well." ..."
"... Buttigieg wants us to see his lack of national experience as an asset instead of a liability ..."
"... Why is Buttigieg jet-setting between Wall Street and Silicon Valley for funding, instead of talking to the average voters (who hate both finance and tech) he supposedly represents? How can a Harvard and Oxford-educated ex-McKinseyite who has never taken up arms against corporate corruption credibly claim to be anything other than elitist in the first place? ..."
"... And who better understands what a Buttigieg administration would actually do -- MSNBC pundits impressed by Buttigieg's down-to-earth persona, or revolving-door insider Austan Goolsbee? ..."
A senator from California, a senator from New York, and a nationally known Texan congressman
have all clocked out of the 2020 Democratic primary. Yet the little-known mayor of the
fourth-largest city in Indiana is not only staying alive, but thriving.
At least he was, until early December. Pete Buttigieg is currently receiving the media
scrutiny expected of a front-runner, and his multilingual Midwestern golden boy routine isn't
holding up very well. After a
horrific ProPublica-New York Times expose put the spotlight squarely on Buttigieg's old
employer McKinsey, he has
struggled to justify his silence on what exactly he did for the firm, and
squirmed under broader scrutiny of his corporate funders and bundlers. That's also
brought his
tight-lipped attitude toward his actual record in South Bend -- as well as
South Bend's racist policing , and Buttigieg's own
dismissive politicking toward African Americans -- back to the spotlight.
My organization, the Revolving Door Project at the Center for Economic and Policy
Research, was
one of the first to call out this election cycle's broad lack of bundler transparency,
but there's another, even simpler data point about the South Bend mayor that we're surprised
hasn't penetrated the broader discourse. Just look at the actual figures lining up behind the
South Bend mayor, and it becomes clear that he's an actor for the well-connected.
On December 5, while the McKinsey story was gaining steam, Buttigieg's campaign
triumphantly
announced the endorsement of former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers Austan
Goolsbee. When former White House officials make early endorsements like these, they're often
overtures toward getting their former jobs back. Especially since Goolsbee isn't backing Joe
Biden, Obama's natural heir, he's likely angling for a senior position in the Buttigieg
administration. Goolsbee said in his endorsement, "It has been a while since I have seen the
kind of excitement on the ground in Iowa that Mayor Pete has generated, and the last time
worked out pretty well."
To hear Goolsbee recall Obama's campaign promises should make all voters groan, and the
Midwest seethe. On the 2008 campaign trail, Obama harshly criticized the North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) for hollowing out Rust Belt factories, and even agreed to consider
withdrawing the United States in a debate with Hillary Clinton. Yet at the same time,
Goolsbee sent a back-channel memo to the Canadian embassy that Obama's criticisms of NAFTA
were "more reflective of political maneuvering than policy." Later in office, as the
American auto industry crumpled under the recession, Goolsbee
favored letting Chrysler fail rather than "siphon market-share from Ford and GM,"
according to contemporaneous reports.
Goolsbee departed the White House in June 2011 to return to the University of Chicago. In
January 2013 -- while Obama was still in office -- he picked up a new job that should raise
even louder alarm bells about his priorities and worldview. While ostensibly a full-time
professor, Goolsbee now leads the Economic Intelligence practice at 32 Advisors, a firm
founded by fellow Obama alum Robert Wolf. What does 32 Advisors do? It does the two things
most revolving-door figures do to get rich: influencing and investing.
On influencing, 32 Advisors makes no effort to hide what it's up to. While Obama was still
in office, the 32 Advisors website
advertised that it "helps companies navigate the intricacies of government regulations
and develop strategies to build strong relationships." Goolsbee's Economic Advisory
department
advertised "unparalleled insights into the future of the economy and its influence on
businesses," including "Geo-Political Briefings & Ad-Hoc Email Insights." It's not your
average consultant who can offer geopolitical insights from a former Cabinet adviser and
longtime confidante of the then-sitting President of the United States. It also says
something about a person's character to offer that insider take to the highest bidder.
(Goolsbee was unlikely to starve on his salary as a professor at the University of Chicago
School of Business.)
Meanwhile, 32 Advisors also runs its own investing arm called 32 Ventures. This has
echoes of Bain and Company's relationship with Bain Capital, a
former Obama punching bag in the 2012 campaign. 32 Advisors' relationship with 32
Ventures is even closer: instead of separate firms, the consultancy and investment wing are
different divisions of the same company.
Nowadays, 32 Advisors' consulting arm is called Strategic Worldviews, which offers -- for
the right price -- insights from Goolsbee, Glenn Hubbard (a George W. Bush economic adviser
who's now on the board of private equity titan KKR), and others. Here's the twist:
Strategic Worldviews is "a joint venture between 32 Ventures and Anthony Scaramucci's
SALT Ventures."
Yes, that Anthony Scaramucci.
Other highlights from the 32 Ventures portfolio: Blade, a "digitally powered
short-distance aviation company" that puts more recreational planes in the air to gobble up
our carbon budget; the cannabis-related companies 14th Round and High Beauty, both of which
have white founders, and one of whom is
previously wealthy (read about the race and class issues in the legal cannabis industry
here ); and Chanticleer Holdings, the parent company of Hooters.
So we have a man who wanted to let the Rust Belt collapse, who revolved out to the
influence and investment industries, and who literally works with The Mooch, throwing his
support behind the Midwestern mayor. And the mayor is proud of this endorsement! The
whole thing speaks to a fundamental tension about Buttigieg.
He is an elitist's idea of a small-town Indiana mayor. Buttigieg wants us to see his
lack of national experience as an asset instead of a liability . Everyone hates
Washington, after all. But if he is truly alien to the Washington way of doing things, why is
a swamp figure like Goolsbee throwing support to Buttigieg instead of established moderates
like Amy Klobuchar or Cory Booker? If Buttigieg actually is -- to use a meaningless word
D.C.-types love -- "electable," what will he say to an Ohio autoworker wondering why he's
cozying up to the forces who were ready to leave him out in the cold in the recession?
Why is Buttigieg jet-setting between Wall Street and Silicon Valley for funding,
instead of talking to the average voters (who hate both finance and tech) he supposedly
represents? How can a Harvard and Oxford-educated ex-McKinseyite who has never taken up arms
against corporate corruption credibly claim to be anything other than elitist in the first
place?
And who better understands what a Buttigieg administration would actually do -- MSNBC
pundits impressed by Buttigieg's down-to-earth persona, or revolving-door insider Austan
Goolsbee?
Max Moran is a research assistant at the Center for Economic and Policy Research
(CEPR), which aims to increase scrutiny on executive branch appointments.
"My party's not known for worrying about the deficit or the debt too much but it's time
for us to start getting into that," Mayor Pete says in NH town hall in response to voter
anxious about debt. Says everything his campaign has proposed is paid for.
Mayor Pete expanded on this in the gaggle: "I believe every Presidency of my lifetime
has been an example of deficits growing under Republican government and shrinking under
Democratic government, but my party's got to get more comfortable talking about this
issue"
"And we shouldn't be afraid to demonstrate that we have the revenue to cover every cost
that we incur in the investments that we're proposing."
Looks like MMT is not a McKinsey-approved management tool.
Buttigieg (D)(2): "The trips to war zones that Pete Buttigieg rarely talks about" [ABC].
Missed this at the time: "But what the 37-year-old South Bend mayor didn't mention, and
virtually never discusses in his run for the nation's highest office, were other trips to
Afghanistan and Iraq years prior to his military deployment, when he was a 20-something
civilian contractor for the global consulting firm McKinsey & Company . Buttigieg worked
for McKinsey from 2007 to 2010, after completing post-graduate studies at Oxford. In his
memoir, 'Shortest Way Home,' he mentions his involvement in domestic projects for the firm like
doing energy efficiency research in the U.S., and goes into particular detail about one that
involved analyzing North American grocery prices. But when it comes to his work abroad with
McKinsey, he only drops hints about working on 'war zone economic development to help grow
private sector employment' in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also refers to a 'safe house' in
Baghdad. The book doesn't say exactly when or how long Buttigieg was in either country." •
So Mayo Pete was (?) a spook? No reporting on this; the story just disappeared.
The question is who will listed to Obama after his "change we can believe in" betrayal. Also
is not he a war criminal? Obama election was probably the most slick false flag operation even
conducted by intelligence agencies. Somebody created for him complexly fake but still plausible
legend.
That Obama desire to interfere in 2020 election also shows gain that that he a regular
completely corrupt Clinton neoliberal. The worst king of neoliberals, wolfs in sheep's
clothing.
And the fact that CIA democrats dominates the Democratic Party actually is another reason
from "Demexit" from the Democratic party of workers and lower middle class. The sad fact that the
USA Corporate Dems recently became the second pro-war militarist party, and learned to love
intelligence agencies; two things unimaginable in 60th and 70th.
As we noted earlier, a bombshell admission from Politico today exploring Obama's
substantial behind the scenes influence as Democratic kingmaker : included in the lengthy
profile on the day-to-day of the former president's personal office in the West End of
Washington D.C. and his meeting with the field of Democratic candidates, is
the following gem :
"Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama would
speak up to stop him."
And crucially, when asked about that prior statement reported in Politico, an Obama
spokesperson did not deny that he said it.
The frank admission underscores what many independent analysts, not to
mention prior damning WikiLeaks DNC disclosures , have pointed out for years: that the
establishment controlling the Democratic party has continuously sought to rig the system
against Bernie.
"Since losing 2016, Dem elites have waged a prolonged effort to stop Bernie. Bernie is the
obvious answer to the neoliberal Clinton-Obama legacy voters rejected..." journalist Aaron
Maté observed of the
Politico quote.
Here's the stunning and deeply revealing section in full, which began by outlining Obama's
'advice-giving' throughout meetings with Democrat contenders including Joe Biden, Elizabeth
Warren, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker,
and others :
Publicly, he has been clear that he won't intervene in the primary for or against a
candidate , unless he believed there was some egregious attack. "I can't even imagine with
this field how bad it would have to be for him to say something," said a close adviser.
Instead, he sees his role as providing guardrails to keep the process from getting too ugly
and to unite the party when the nominee is clear.
There is one potential exception: Back when Sanders seemed like more of a threat than he
does now, Obama said privately that if Bernie were running away with the nomination, Obama
would speak up to stop him. (Asked about that, a spokesperson for Obama pointed out that
Obama recently said he would support and campaign for whoever the Democratic nominee is.)
And a further deeply revealing but more laughable quote comes later as follows: "Obama
designed his post-presidency in 2016, at a time when he believed Hillary Clinton would win and
Biden would be out of politics." So the reality is... far from the idea that the Dem elites
would back the actual nominee the party puts forward, clearly the die has already been cast
against Bernie just
like the last time around against Hillary in 2016.
Politico author Ryan Lizza later in the story quotes a "close family friend," who described
that Obama's "politics are not strong left of center."
"I mean it's left, but he's nowhere near where some of the candidates are currently sitting,
at least when he got himself elected," the source claimed.
This means in the mind of Obama and other top party influencers and kingmakers, Bernie and
other popular outliers like Tulsi Gabbard have already long been sidelined. Tulsi, it should
also be noted, is one of the couple of candidates who did not bother to stop by Obama's D.C.
office for a 'blessing' and advice.
"... "US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg (foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure him? ..."
"... "Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable candidate in the Democratic Party field. ..."
"... Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected. ..."
"... It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further; two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I did", what or who made you think that you could do that? ..."
"Graham's conspiracy theory-based investigation is rooted in the
baseless allegation that Biden pressured Ukraine to remove a corrupt prosecutor in 2016
as a way to protect Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, against a corruption probe. Biden's
son Hunter was previously a board member with Burisma until April this year.
There is no evidence to support allegations that Biden acted improperly in calling for the
prosecutor general in charge of the Burisma probe to be ousted, and both Ukrainian and U.S.
officials have said there is no merit to the claim. As many have since noted, the Burisma
investigation was in fact dormant when the prosecutor general was forced out on accusations
he was slow-walking corruption probes, among other things.
Trump brought up that debunked conspiracy during a July 25 call with Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskiy, asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden as well as a
baseless conspiracy involving the Democratic National Committee servers."
"Epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge, justification, and the rationality
of belief. Much debate in epistemology centers on four areas:
(3) the sources and scope of knowledge and justified belief, and
(4) the criteria for knowledge and justification.
Epistemology addresses such questions as: "What makes justified beliefs justified?" " What
does it mean to say that we know something? ", and fundamentally "How do we know that we
know?"
~ wiki on epistemology
-------------
As in the example above from the "American Independent," the MSM and online projects like
the American Independent incessantly insist that the simple fact that Hunter Biden and his dear
old dad, a "Union Man," solicited money in Ukraine and in China for services not rendered
proves nothing, that nothing has been proven against them and that any mention of these
occurrences is evidence of harsh partisan rhetoric based on fantasy and equivalent to belief in
the Loch Ness Monster.
Well, pilgrims I want to know who and what investigation or investigations cleared the
Bidens of anything.
It is obvious that Hunter is qualified for employment as a bag man and not much else. He has
a law degree? So what? As in the matter of the qualifications of doctors, not all learn much in
medical or law school.
"US Officials" say the Bidens are pure in heart and deed? Hah! Is it not clear that The Borg
(foreign policy establishment) hate Donald Trump and will say anything possible to injure
him?
"Debunked," "Discredited," "Conspiracy theories?" Trickery in the press is the real truth , trickery intended to protect the only viable
candidate in the Democratic Party field.
The article highlighted here, typically, is a lie. As documented in Moon of Alabama's
timeline (
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2019/11/a-timeline-of-joe-bidens-intervention-against-the-prosecutor-general-of-ukraine.html),
Shokin was actively investigating Zlochevsky in February 2016, when Shokin seized his luxury
car. Barely two weeks later, Biden was on the phone to Poroshenko demanding Shokin's firing.
While this doesn't prove that Biden was motivated primarily by a desire to protect his son's
employer, it is certainly consistent with that possibility.
John Solomon has been very much in the lead on reporting from Ukraine which furthers what the
MSM calls "conspiracy theories".
While he earlier reported, or opined, from The Hill,
now he evidently has been bumped (my opinion) from that perch,
and now has own blog John Solomon Report : https://johnsolomonreports.com/
It is tragic, IMO, how the MSM ignores the facts that Solomon documents in his
columns.
It is possible that JS is a mouthpiece for corrupt elements in Ukraine,
but I think his points deserve more attention than they have been getting.
There are two sides to this story, not only one as Col. Lang pointed out in his root
piece.
I recall that the Russiagate conspiracy theory was "proven" factual as well, and by many of
the same people who claim that Biden's corruption has been "debunked". Even though it was
absurd on its face and had been debunked numerous times, many people in fact continue to
insist otherwise.
Seriously....who would think Biden's son taking a highly paid position with a company in a
foreign country that Biden was representing the US in wasn't a conflict of interest? Even the
'appearance' of a conflict of interest should be avoided in such situations.
I find Biden and his political 'career', greased by his 'good old Joe act' disgusting in so
many ways it would take too long to describe them here.
The media really seems to be testing the limits of disinformation. More and more, the media
wants to convince people that black is white and up is down. Fortunately, I don't think their
plan is working all that well.
In the case of Hunter Biden, we are told that "There is no evidence to support allegations
that Biden acted improperly".
Okay, that's one way to look at things, but I have found that even among my liberal
friends, the fetid smell of corruption emitting from this case, is overpowering. And while
most people might have a hard time sinking their teeth into a "quid pro quo", they do have a
pretty good grasp of old fashioned influence peddling, which is what we are talking
about.
So why has the media chosen to defend the crooked goings-on of public officials who were
obviously up to no good? Don't they care about their credibility at all?
Was the American Independent quote lifted from The NY Times? It sure sounds like it!
For some time I've been wondering how exactly Biden got cleared. Was there any formal
investigation? Who conducted it? And how reliable are the facts when they come from a place
like Ukraine, where anything, including the 'truth,' can be laundered?
What's become painfully obvious is how eagerly America's major news outlets, including the
journals of record, participate in the laundering of truth.
Of course, that should have been obvious from the yellow journalism preceding the war in
Iraq.
What's really scary are reports that "intelligence" services get most of their 'facts'
from the very same truth laundering sources.
I always got the impression the "wild, debunked conspiracy theory pushed by right wing nuts"
was always referring to the Crowdstrike DNC computer investigation hoax that Trump tried to
re-open.
They would never specifically refer to the Crowdstrike favor Trump specifically asked for
in the phone call, instead they would substitute Trump asked about some "debunked, wild right
wing conspiracy".
So they never explained how the Crowdstrike investigation hoax was debunked either.
To me this is far more interesting missing debunked conspiracy link - since it shows
incredible coordination between the DNC, the "leak" of their DNC computer data, Ukrainian
Crowdstrike, and finally the Mueller Report who used the DNC Crowdstrike investigation
conclusoin hook line and sinker to reach their own official conclusions which is now "proven"
operating dogma. Without ever doing an independent investigation themselves. How often does
that happen?
To me the Crowdstrike connection begs further investigation - why would a Russian hating
Ukrainian who was running Crowdstrike point the finger at the Russians and claim they
"hacked" the DNC computers, but not let anyone else touch those same computers to corroborate
that conclusion?
And then parlay this into Trump supporting Russian interference in the 2016 election. All
too tidy for me. Feels like dark forces are still at work, and subverting language to achieve
their ends.
Whatever happened to Joe Biden's taped boast, at the Council on Foreign Relations, that he
gave President Poroshenko 6 hours to fire Prosecutor Shokin -- or else lose $1 Billion of US
aid ?
How was this taped confession of QUID-PRO-QUO debunked ?
The media (approx. 99% of them) have been in the tank for Democrats since at least the
Vietnam war.
Roger Ailes said why he didn't read the NY Times:
"You cover the bad news about America. You do. But you don't get up in the morning hating
your country."
Eight days later Joe Biden launched an intense pressure campaign to get rid of Shokin. He
personally calls Poroshenko on Feb 12, 18 and 19 to press for firing Shokin.
To think that this is unrelated is not reasonable.
The rest of the
timeline shows further Biden influence in the case.
(I should update that timeline as a lot of additional evidence of Burisma lobbying State
at that time has since come in.)
There are tons of additional dirt. The U.S. has control over the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) and uses it to push all such investigations to its favor. NABU has
itself been involved in serious corruption.
There is also a USAID/Soros paid NGO that has a similar function and is equally corrupt.
These organizations are used as weapons to put all Ukrainian assets into the hands of
those that the U.S. embassy likes.
Lutsenko was the guy who was appointed as Prosecutor General after Biden got the previous
one fired. IOW Lutsenko owed his job to Biden.
Lutsenko has had a pretty sketchy career, including charges of abuse of power, forgery and
embezzlement among other things. https://heavy.com/news/2019/11/yuriy-lutsenko/ It's telling that Democrats and the mainstream media choose to cite such a character as
their primary source for evidence that the Bidens did nothing wrong. Reminds me of Mark Twains old adage: "An honest politician is one who, once he's been
bought, stays bought." More recently it seems that his loyalties have shifted, accusing
Yovanovitch of giving him a list of people who should be protected.
The only thing I can conclude is that Lutsenko is probably just trying to survive the
shifting tides in the Ukrainian swamp and will say or do whatever it takes.
"American Independent" is David Brock's Clinton / Soros linked Shareblue disinfo and troll
brigade rebranded. It will obviously tell every lie going to protect the corrupt Corporate Dem Establishment,
the Globalists and the Deep State. https://twitter.com/Ian56789/status/1198338991814250497
It's not really that complicated an inquiry to decide whether there is a need to go further;
two questions: what did Hunter Biden do for the money; and Joe, did you get the Ukrainian
prosecutor fired as you bragged you did, and why? Maybe throw in a third if the answer is "I
did", what or who made you think that you could do that?
"... Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"? She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Ańez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic? Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich. ..."
"... I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine. ..."
"... I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption. ..."
"... She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose. People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique. ..."
"... This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency consensus" was formed without them. ..."
"... The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.) ..."
"... That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run. Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs. ..."
"... if Warren becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate will be perfect–ever. ..."
"... Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%. Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected? ..."
Reiterates Her Neoconservative Policies Against Venezuela
Elizabeth Warren repeated her support for regime change in Venezuela in an interview in September with the
Council on Foreign Relations , a central gear in the machinery
of the military-industrial complex. "Maduro is a dictator and a crook who has wrecked his country's economy, dismantled its democratic
institutions, and profited while his people suffer," Warren declared. She referred to Maduro's elected government as a "regime" and
called for "supporting regional efforts to negotiate a political transition." Echoing the rhetoric of neoconservatives in Washington,
Warren called for "contain[ing]" the supposedly "damaging and destabilizing actions" of China, Russia, and Cuba. The only point where
Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
Soft-Pedals Far-Right Coup in Bolivia
While Warren endorsed Trump's hybrid war on Venezuela, she more recently whitewashed the U.S.-backed coup in Bolivia.
Warren refused to comment on the putsch for more than a week, even as the far-right military junta massacred dozens of protesters
and systematically purged and detained elected left-wing politicians from MAS.
Finally, eight days after the coup, Warren broke her silence. In a short tweet, the putative progressive presidential candidate
tepidly requested "free and fair elections" and calling on the "interim leadership" to prepare an "early, legitimate election."
What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president"
Jeanine Ańez. Ańez has referred
to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's progressive constitution,
which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic mandate in a 2009 referendum.
Ańez's ally in this coup regime's interim leadership is
Luis Fernando
Camacho , a multi-millionaire who emerged out of neo-fascist groups and courted support from the United States and the far-right
governments of Brazil and Colombia. By granting legitimacy to Bolilvia's ultra-conservative, unelected leadership, Warren rubber-stamped
the far-right coup and the military junta's attempt to stamp out Bolivia's progressive democracy. In other words, as The Grayzone
editor Max Blumenthal put it, Liz's
Big Structural Bailey compliantly rolled over for
Big IMF Structural Adjustment Program
.
Ben Norton is a journalist and writer. He is a reporter for The Grayzone , and the producer of the "
Moderate Rebels " podcast, which he co-hosts with Max Blumenthal. His
website is BenNorton.com , and he tweets at @
BenjaminNorton .
A vote for evil is never a good choice, and choosing a candidate you perceive as a lesser evil still condones evil. Allowing
the Oligarchy to limit your choice gives them the power to continue advancing evil policies. They control both major parties.
You may succeed in getting non-gender specific restrooms in your Starbucks, but the murdering war machine will continue unabated.
Now, we are seeing the true colors of candidates, who have professed to be progressive. Sanders went on a "tirade" against
Maduro during the last "debate" I saw. Tulsi Gabbard has stayed against US Imperialism, but, I'm sure the Democratic policy controllers
will never nominate her. I foresee I'll be voting for the Socialist next year.
Raymond M. , November 22, 2019 at 18:09
""""On Nov. 10, the U.S. government backed a far-right military coup against Bolivia's democratically elected President Evo
Morales bla blla bla".
And the 3 right wing candidates spent more time slinging mud at at each other than at Morales. Had the CIAs top front man Ortez stepped aside, the vote would not have split and allowed Morales to claim a first round victory and avoid
a run-off that he would have lost. And the right wing Christian fundamentalist for sure was a CIA plant who manged to split the
vote further.
Under the Trump administration, the CIA can even run a coup right.
If only those anti-Western rulers seen the light and joined RBWO (rule* based world order, * rules decided in DC, preferably
by bipartisan consensus), then the economy would run smoothly and the population would be happy. Every week gives another example:
By The Associated Press, Nov. 21, 2019, BOGOTA, Colombia
Colombians angry with President Iván Duque and hoping to channel Latin America's wave of discontent took the streets by the tens
of thousands on Thursday in one of the biggest protests in the nation's recent history. [ ] Police estimated 207,000 people took
part. [ ] government deployed 170,000 officers, closed border crossings and deported 24 Venezuelans accused of entering the country
to instigate unrest.
So if only Iván did not start unnecessary conflict with Maduro, these 24 scoundrels would stay home and the trouble would be
avoided. Oh wait, I got confused
CitizenOne , November 21, 2019 at 22:10
You must imagine that when candidtes suddenly become mind control puppets what is going on. The scariest thing in American
Politics is how supposedly independent and liberal progressives somehow swallow the red pill and are transported into the world
of make believe. Once inside the bubble of fiction far removed from human suffering which is after all what politicians are supposed
to be about fixing they can say crazy things. Jimmy Carter and Donald Trump are the only souls to retain their independent (yet
opposite) minds and both of them got the boot for being different.
Hide Behind , November 21, 2019 at 20:44
The puppet masters are experts, on the one hand there is A Republican, and on the other is a Democrat, but even they mess up
now and then get the different strings tangled.
Some come back on stage on the different hand so to save time they give a puppet two faces.
Watching same puppets gets old so every so often 2-4-6 they restring an old one that was used as props in past, change their makeup
a bit to give them new faces.
We do not actually elect the puppet, we instead legitimize the Puppeteers who own' s the only stage in town.
Those who choreograph the movements and change the backgrouds, media outlets and permanent bureaucrats know the plays before they
are introduced, and they know best how to get adults to leave reality behind and bring back their childhood fantacies.
Days of sugar plums, candy canes, socks filled with goodies and not coal, tooth fairys, and kind generous Fairy God Mothers.
Toy Nutcracker soldiers that turn into Angelic heros, Yellow brick roads, Bunnies with pocket watches, and and magic shoes of
red, or of glass in hand of handsome Princes and beautiful Princesses, all available if we vote.
So who votes, only those who control the voting puppets know that reality does not exist, they twitch we react, and at end of
voting counts one of hand's puppets will slump and cry, while others will leap and dance in joy, only for all to end up in one
pile until the puppeteers need them for next act.
Frederike , November 21, 2019 at 17:30
"What Warren did not mention is that this "interim leadership" she helped legitimize is headed by an extreme right-wing Christian
fundamentalist, the unelected "interim president" Jeanine Ańez.
Ańez has referred to Bolivia's majority-Indigenous population as "satanic" and immediately moved to try to overturn the country's
progressive constitution, which had established an inclusive, secular, plurinational state after receiving an overwhelming democratic
mandate in a 2009 referendum."
Doesn't Warren claim to have indigenous ancestors herself and was proud of it? She caused Trump to call her "Pocahontas"?
She agrees to support the unelected interim president Jeannine Ańez, who refers to indigenous inhabitants as satanic?
Warren is a very horrible person, inhumane, amoral, and rather stupid overall, who wants to get rich.
Everything she agreed to in the interview listed above is pathetic. I had no idea that she is such a worthless individual.
arggo , November 22, 2019 at 19:57
"neocon" explains this. She seems to have the support of very foundational structures that enabled Hillary Clinton Democrats to attack
and destroy Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Warren has not lost my vote for the simple reason she never had it in the first place. None of this, sickening as it is, comes
as any surprise. Warren is an unapologetic capitalist. She's like Robert Reich in that regard. They both believe capitalism–if
reformed, tweaked a bit here and there–can work. To give her credit, she's always been very honest about that. And of course our
doctrine of regime change is all in the service of capitalism. Unless I'm simply confused and mistaken.
Sherwood Forrest , November 22, 2019 at 09:38
Yes, Capitalist First! That makes it so difficult for any aware person to believe she sincerely supports a wealth tax, Universal
Healthcare, Green New Deal, College loan forgiveness, family leave or anything else the 1% oppose. Because promising like Santa
is part of Capitalist politics, and then saying," Nah, we can't afford it."
I personally think that capitalism with "human face" and robust public sector is the way to go. But imperialist imposition
and aggression is not the part of "human face" that I imagine.
So Warren's imperialist positions are evil and unnecessary to preserve capitalism, how that projects at her as a person it
is hard to tell. A Polish poet has those words spoken by a character in his drama "On that, I know only what I heard, but I am
afraid to investigate because it poisons my mind about " (Znam to tylko z opowiada?, ale strzeg? si? tych bada?, bo mi truj? my?l
o ) As typical of hearsay, her concept of events in Venezuela, Bolivia etc. is quite garbled, she has no time (but perhaps some
fear) to investigate herself (easy in the era of internet). A serious politician has to think a lot about electability (and less
about the folks under the steam roller of the Empire), so she has to "pick her fights".
It is rather clear that American do not care if people south of the border are governed democratically or competently, which
led Hillary Clinton to make this emphatic statement in a debate with Trump "You will not see me singing praises of dictators or
strongmen who do not love America". One can deconstruct it "if you do not love America you are a strongman or worse, but if you
love America, we will be nice to you". I would love to have the original and deconstructed statement polled, but Warren is not
the only one afraid of such investigations. So "electability" connection to green light to Bolivian fascist and red light to Bolivarians
of Venezuela is a bit indirect. Part of it is funding, part, bad press.
brett , November 21, 2019 at 15:15
I'm sorry but you all need to come to terms with the farce that is the American political system. Anyone who was supporting
Warren or even considering voting for her for ANY reason is apparently either in denial or is being duped. Warren is a Madison
Avenue creation packaged for US liberal consumption.
She is a fraud and a liar. One trained in psychology can see, in her every
movement and utterance, the operation that is going on behind the facade. Everything Warren says is a lie to someone. She only
states truth in order to later dis-inform. Classic deception. She (her billionaires) has latched on to the populism of the DSA
etc. in order to sabotage any progressive momentum and drive a stake in it.
Rob Roy , November 22, 2019 at 00:40
She hangs out with Hillary Clinton and Madeline Albright, two evil women if ever there were. Now they make the three witches
brewing one coup/regime change after another. She's not smart enough to see that HRC and MA are leading her around by her nose.
People should call out this phoney everywhere she goes. BTW, Rachel Maddow completes an odious clique.
This is a bit of exaggeration. The three ladies are more like good students, they did not write the textbook but they good
grades for answering as written, or like cheerleaders, they jump and shout but they do not play in the field. Mind you, "interagency
consensus" was formed without them.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 14:53
The DNC's strategy for this election is to ensure that Bernie doesn't go into the Convention with enough delegates to win the
first ballot. (Once voting goes past the first ballot, super-delegates get to weigh in and help anoint a candidate who's friendly
to the Party's plutocratic-oligarch principals.)
That's the reason the DNC is allowing and encouraging so many candidates to run.
Warren's specific assignment is to cannibalize Bernie's base and steal delegates that would otherwise be his, by pretending to
espouse most of his platform with only minor tweaks. She's been successful with "better educated," higher-income liberal Democrats
who consider themselves well informed because they get their news from "respectable" sources -- sources that, unbeknownst to their
target audiences, invariably represent the viewpoint of the aforementioned plutocratic oligarchs.
Absolutely nothing in Warren's background supports her new calculatedly progressive primary persona. She was a Reagan
Republican. When the Republican Party moved right to become the party of batshit crazy and the Democratic Party shifted right
to become the party of Reagan Republicans, she became a Democrat. She's not a good actress, and it takes willing suspension of
disbelief to buy into her performance as a savvier, wonkier alternative to Bernie. And when she's pressed for details (Medicare
for All) and responses to crises (Venezuela and Bolivia), the cracks in her progressive façade become patently obvious. She's
a sleeper agent for Democratic-leaning plutocrats, like Obama was in 2008, and she would never get my vote.
PS: Impressed by Warren's progressive wealth-tax plan? Don't be. Our country's billionaires know she won't fight for it, and
that if she did, Congress would never pass it. (They know who owns Congress.) Besides, do you really think Pocahontas would
beat Trump? Do you think Sleepy Joe would? The billionaires wouldn't bet on it. And they're fine with that. Sure, they'd like
someone who's more thoroughly corporatist on trade and more committed to hot régime-change wars than Trump is, but they can live
just fine with low-tax, low-regulation Trump. It's the prospect of a Bernie presidency that keeps them up at night
and their proxies in the Democratic Party and allied media are doing everything they can to neutralize that threat.
mbob , November 21, 2019 at 18:13
@Peter
Thanks for this beautiful post. I agree with it 100%. I've been trying to figure out why Democrats are so consistently unable
to see through rhetoric and fall for what candidates pretend to be. Part of it is wishful thinking. A lot of it is, as you wrote,
misplaced trust in "respectable" sources. I have no idea how to fix that: how does one engender the proper skepticism of the MSM?
I haven't been able to open the eyes of any of my friends. (Fortunately my wife and daughter opened their own eyes.)
Warren is, if you look clearly, driven by her enormous ambition. She's the same as every other candidate in that regard, save
Bernie.
Bernie is driven by the same outrage that we feel. We need him.
In the last Israeli massacre on Gaza she was all for the IDF killing Palistinians. Americans like to look at the CCP and cry
about China being a one party state. Well is the US not a one party state?= Are the views of the Democrats and Republicans not
the same when it comes to slaughtering people in the third world? There is not a razor`s edge between them. Biden, Warren, Sanders,
Trump, Cruz and Pense they are all war criminals, or if elected will soon become war criminals.
From someone who at the beginning showed promise and humanity, she has turned into Albright and Clinton. How f**king sad is
that?
Dan Kuhn , November 21, 2019 at 14:33
Better to see her for what she really is now then after the election if she were to win. She is disgusting in her inhumanity.
Rob , November 21, 2019 at 13:43
This Is, indeed, disturbing and disappointing. Warren seems so genuinely right on domestic economic and social issues, so how
could she be so wrong on foreign policy issues? The same principles apply in both–justice, fairness, equity, etc. That said, she
is no worse than any of the other Democratic candidates in that regard, with the exceptions of Sanders and Gabbard, so if Warren
becomes the nominee, I will support her over Trump. It's a lesser of two evils choice, but we must recognize that no candidate
will be perfect–ever.
Far better to stick to your principles and write in " None of the above." believe me with this article we can easily see that
Trump is no worse nor better than Warren is. They are both pretty poor excuses as human beings.
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 16:04
@Rob:
If you'll allow me to fix that for you, "What Warren tactically claims to support, in the primaries, seems so genuinely
right on domestic economic and social issues ." I'm convinced Warren is an Obama 2.0 in the making. I don't think anyone
can match Obama's near-180° turnabout from his 2008 primary platform and that if Warren is elected, she will try to make Wall
Street a little more honest and stable, maybe advocate for a $12 minimum wage, and maybe try to shave a few thousand dollars off
student-loan debts. I suppose that technically qualifies as less evil than Trump. But I fully expect her to jettison 90% of her
primary platform, including a progressive tax on wealth and Medicare for All. And when you factor in her recently confirmed approval
of US military and financial imperialism -- economic subversion and régime-change operations that cost tens of thousands of innocent
foreign lives, and other peoples their sovereignty -- at what point does "less evil" become too evil to vote for?
John Drake , November 21, 2019 at 13:13
" presidential candidate tepidly requested "free and fair elections". Such a statement ignores the fact that Evo Morales term
was not up; therefore elections are not called for. This means she supports the coup. Restoration of his position which was illegally
and violently stolen from him are in order not elections until his term is up.
Her position on Venezuela is nauseating; as the article states classic neo-conservative. Maybe Robert Kagan will welcome her into
their club as he did with Hillary.
Warren used to be a Republican, she has not been cured of that disease; and is showing her true colors. Maybe it's best as she
is differentiating herself from Bernie. I was concerned before she started down this latest path that she would do an Obama; progressive
rhetoric followed by neo-liberal-or worse- behavior once in office. Maybe she is more honest than Obama.
Guy , November 21, 2019 at 12:40
Warren can't be very informed about what democracy actually means .Democracy is not the same as capitalism .
Not a US citizen but am very disappointed with her stated platform .
Short of divine intervention Tulsi will never make it but Sanders for president and Tulsi as VP would do just fine to re-direct
the US foreign policy and maybe ,just maybe make the US more respectable among the rest of the nations of the world.
It would make a lot of sense from actuarial point of view. The chances that at least one person on the ticket would live healthily
for 8 years would be very good, without Tulsi
Punkyboy , November 21, 2019 at 12:02
I was pretty sure Warren was a Hillary clone; now I'm absolutely sure of it. Another election between worse and worser. I may
just stay home this time, if the world holds together that long.
Socratic Truth , November 21, 2019 at 11:42
Warren is just another puppet of the NWO.
Ma Laoshi , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
I remember years and years ago, I guess about when Lizzie first entered Congress, that she went on the standard pandering tour
to the Motherland and an astute mind commented: Zionism is typically the gateway drug for Democratic would-be reformers. Once
they've swallowed that fundamental poison, the DNC feels secure it's just a matter of time before they Get With the Program 100%.
Given that "Harvard" and "phony" are largely synonymous, what else could've been expected?
Peter in Seattle , November 21, 2019 at 15:32
@Ma Laoshi:
Speaking of Harvard, having contemplated the abysmal track record compiled by our "best and brightest" -- in Congress,
in the White House, and on the federal bench -- I am now almost as suspicious of the Ivy League as I am of the Western
Hemisphere Institute for Security (WHINSEC, formerly known as the School of the Americas). The mission of both is to train capable,
reliable, well-compensated servants to the US plutocracy. (And the only reason I say "almost" is because a non-negligible number
of black sheep have come out of the Ivy League and I'm not aware of any that have come out of WHINSEC.)
Sam F , November 23, 2019 at 18:59
Harvard admissions are apparently largely bought, and doubtless those of Yale and others.
MIT was strictly militarist warmongers in the 1970s, and one compete with 80% cheaters.
Dfnslblty , November 21, 2019 at 11:12
" The only point where Warren diverged with Trump was on her insistence that "there is no U.S. military option in Venezuela."
"
Hell, one doesn't need a military option after immoral, illegal and crippling sanctions.
This essay is the most disturbing piece all year-2019.
Vote anti-military – vote nonviolence.
Don't give these murderers anything but exposure to humane sensibilities.
I didn't think Trump supported a military solution in Venezuela. That was John Bolton's baby and Trump fired him as one would
hope he would soon fire Pompeo as has been hinted at. Trump campaigned on ending wars of choice but has given in to the MIC at
almost every turn. Maybe he will resign in leiu of being impeached. We might then see a Rand Paul vs. Bernie Sanders. I could
live with either one
Skip Scott , November 21, 2019 at 09:12
Once again the Democratic Party is pushing to have our choice for 2020 be between corporate sponsored war monger from column
A or B.
I wish Tulsi would "see the light" and run as an Independent in 2020. There is absolutely no way that she gets the nod from
the utterly corrupt DNC. She is abandoning her largest base (Independents) by sticking with the Democratic Party. Considering
the number of disgruntled non-voters, she could easily win the general election; but she will never win the Democratic primary.
The field is purposely flooded to ensure the "superdelegates" get the final say on a second ballot.
AnneR , November 21, 2019 at 08:50
Warren is as inhumane, amoral and imperialist as anyone in the WH and the US Congress, and she is certainly kindred in spirit,
thought and would be in deed, as Madeline Albright, the cheerful slaughterer of some 500,000 Iraqi children because the "price
was worth it." Of course, these utterly racist, amoral people do not have to pay "that price" nor do any of their families. (And
let us not forget that Albright and Killary are good friends – Warren is totally kindred with the pair, totally.)
And clearly Warren – like all of the Demrat contenders – is full on for any kind of warfare that will bring a "recalcitrant"
country into line with US demands (on its resources, lands etc.). She is grotesque.
She and those of her ilk – all in Congress, pretty much, and their financial backers – refuse to accept that Maduro and Morales
*both* were legally, legitimately and cleanly re-elected to their positions as presidents of their respective countries. But to
do that would be to go against her (commonly held) fundamental belief that the US has the right to decide who is and is not the
legitimate national leader of any given country. And what policies they institute.
Anyone who supports economic sanctions is supporting siege warfare, is happily supporting the starvation and deprivation of
potentially millions of people. And shrugging off the blame for the effects of the sanctions onto the government of the sanctioned
country is heinous, is immoral and unethical. WE are the ones who are killing, not the government under extreme pressure. If you
can't, won't accept the responsibility – as Warren and the rest of the US government clearly will not – for those deaths you are
causing, then stay out of the bloody kitchen: stop committing these crimes against humanity.
Cara , November 21, 2019 at 15:25
Please provide documentation that Sanders is, as you claim, a "full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian."
Sanders has been quite consistent in his criticism of Israel and the treatment of Palestinians: timesofisrael.com/bernie-sanders-posts-video-citing-apartheid-like-conditions-for-palestinians;
and; jacobinmag.com/2019/07/bernie-sanders-israel-palestine-bds
"Sanders is less so, but not wholly because he is a full-on zionist supporter of "Israel" and clearly anti-Palestinian"
Sanders is definitely not "full-on zionist supporter", not only he does not deny that "Palestinians exist" (to died-in-the-wool
Zionists, Palestinians are a malicious fiction created to smear Israel etc., google "Fakestinians"), but he claims that they have
rights, and using Hamas as a pretext for Gaza blockade is inhumane (a recent headline). One can pull his other positions and statements
to argue in the other direction, but in my opinion, he is at the extreme humane end of "zionist spectrum" (I mean, so humane that
almost not a Zionist).
Bill Clinton destroyed the USA economy and middle class like no president has ever done.
Bush II and Obama exacerbated the destruction by the hundred folds.
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
Those of us who seek the truth can't stop looking under every stone. The truth will set
you free but you must share it with those who are ready to hear it and hide it from those who
can hurt you for exposing it. MT
"A Society that looses the capacity for the sacred cannibalizes itself until it dies
because it exploits the natural world as well as human beings to the point of collapse."
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history. The Progressive movement, for example,
(written into American history as being far more important that it ever really was,) unlike
Socialism or Communism was primarily just a literary and a trendy intellectually movement
that attempted, (unconvincingly,) to persuade poor, exploited and abused Americans that non
of those other political movements, (reactive and grass-roots,) were needed here and that
capitalism could and might of itself, cure itself; it conceded little, promised much and
unlike either Communism or Socialism delivered fuck all. Personally I remain unconvinced also
by, "climate science," (which he takes as given,) and which seems to to me to depend far too
much on faith and self important repeatedly insisting that it's true backed by lurid and
hysterical propaganda and not nearly enough on rational scientific argument, personally I
can't make head nor tail of the science behind it ? (it may well be true, or not; I can't
tell.) But above all and stripped of it his pretensions his argument is just typical theist,
(of any flavor you like,) end of times claptrap all the other systems have failed, (China for
example somewhat gives the lie to death of Communism by the way and so on,) the end is neigh
and all that is left to do is for people to turn to character out of first century fairly
story. I wish him luck with that.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
I have always loved Chris Hedges, but ever since becoming fully awake it pains me to see
how he will take gigantic detours of imagination to never mention Israel, AIPAC or Zionism,
and their complete takeover of the US. What a shame.
The continued growth of unproductive debt against the low or nonexistent growth of GDP is
the recipe for collapse, for the whole world economic system.
I agree with Chris about the tragedy of the Liberal Church. Making good through identity
politics however, is every bit as heretical and tragic as Evangelical Republican corrupted
church think, in my humble, Christian opinion.
The death of the present western hemisphere governments and "democratic" institutions must
die right now for humanity to be saved from the zombies that rule it. 'Cannibalization" of
oikonomia was my idea, as well as of William Engdahl. l am glad hearing Hedges to adopt the
expression of truth. ( November 2019. from Phthia , Hellas ).
ass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Gosh , especially that last conclusion
,was terrific so I want to paste the whole of that Auden poem here:- September 1, 1939 W. H.
Auden - 1907-1973
... ... ...
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
"... this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods. ..."
"... Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth. ..."
"... To me Trump is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split when it comes to impeachment. ..."
"... Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist Web Site: The CIA Democrats . ..."
"... "The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth." ..."
"... Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all boats! ..."
"... Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a "war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all. ..."
"... To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero. ..."
"... The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee. ..."
I am amazed how the Impeachment Circus and the mainstream media continue to
ignore the facts of this story:
Joe Biden has been a favorite target for Trump-allied lawmakers. Many have adopted Trump's unsubstantiated assertion that Biden
pushed for the ouster of a Ukrainian prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, because he was investigating Burisma.
The CIA is emerging as a domestic political party.
...
Brennan put a friendly finger on my chest. "The CIA is not involved in domestic politics," he said. "Period. That's on the
record."
This he asserted confidently, at an event where he had just spoken about about influence campaigns on swing voters and implied
that Hillary Clinton might be right in calling U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard a Russian asset. Even seasoned analysts, it
seems, have their blind spots.
What shifted [House Speaker Nancy Pelosi] now? I'd say the answer is: this impeachment isn't directed at Trump at all, it's
about undermining the rising left-wing opposition in the Democratic party. They are plausibly on the verge of seizing the party
agenda away from the neo-liberal consensus of the Clinton-Obama decades -- with issues like universal public health-care and
equitable taxes. They've even found ways to fund campaigns without bowing to the corporate gods.
I agree with Mr. Salutin, the impeachment is not about impeachment, although if impeachment results, I'm sure they will take
it. And I agree it's about protecting the current Democratic Part "elites", both from scandal (Joe Biden, Clinton) and from the
challenge on the left. A risky and desperate move .
I tend to think it was Trump going after the Ukraine cesspit that precipitated the impeachment, but other motives seem relevant.
I have thought since Obama went all in with Russiagate that the current Dem leadership does not feel it can afford to relinquish
control.
Political parties are nothing more than gangs. To me, the Dems are like the Gambinos and the Repoops are like the Genovese. And
they hate it when someone from outside their domain comes and disrupt their racket, when things are going smooth.
To me Trump
is like the mobster Joe Gallo, killed at Umberto's clam house in NYC. Gallo was a big shot, talked loud and fast, and wanted to
start his own racket. And the other crime families would not let him do that. So they whacked him. The same thing both Dems and Repoops are trying to do with Trump. And yes Repoops don't like Trump, as in the latest from Drudge, that the Repoops are split
when it comes to impeachment.
Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)
Apropòs the articles about the 'deep state' meddling in US domestic politics, here's an oldie but a goodie from the World Socialist
Web Site: The CIA Democrats .
Craig Murray has an exclusive interview with
Randy Credico he prefaces with these remarks:
"The Mueller investigation has thus ultimately ended up prosecuting people for telling the same pack of lies that Mueller himself
was pushing. The Clinton media, including CNN, the Washington Post and New York Times, are baffled by this. They follow the Stone
trial assiduously from delight in seeing a long term Trump hanger-on brought down, and in the hope something will come out about
Wikileaks or Russia. Their reporting, as that of the BBC, has been deliberately vague on why Stone is being charged, contriving
to leave their audience with the impression that Stone's trial proves Trump connections to Wikileaks and Russia, when in fact
it proves the precise opposite. A fact you will never learn from the mainstream media. Which is why I am doing this at 2am on
a very cold Edinburgh night, for the small but vital audience which is interested in the truth."
That would include MoA barflies since we crave Truth. Murray has a bit more to say prior to the excerpt I provide, which I
suggest be read, too.
What a feast of links! I've only just started, with b's Daniel Lazare piece at Stretegic Culture.org - well done!
" ...This is what impeachment is about, not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine – plus Syria, Libya,
Yemen, and other countries that the Obama administration succeeded in destroying – and why Trump should pay the supreme penalty
for suggesting that Democrats are in any way to blame..."
Of course, it stretches back to both parties, but that's what it is about - not high crimes and misdemeanors, but who lost the Ukraine - plus S, L, Y, and above all I & A!!! Gosh, we might get the entire alphabet included; ahoy all
boats!
Impeachment is about controlling where the attention is focused. When things get to close to home Pelosi says look over here at
the orange head, look over there at the border but whatever you do, do not look over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1KfU5ifhqE ">here.
"Biden / Ukraine: Others begin to get it: 'Further scratches become visible on the picture of the Bidens in the Ukraine affair'
(original in German: 'Am Bild der Bidens in der Ukraine-Affäre werden weitere Kratzer sichtbar' nzz 9.11.19, nzz.ch/international/ukraine-affaere-rolle-der-biden-familie-undurchsichtig-ld.1520759)"
Andrew J. Bacevich weighs in on US foreign policy:
Let me briefly sketch out an alternative narrative that more accurately captures our present predicament. Since the end of
World War II, successive administrations have sought to devise a formula for assuring American consumers access to Persian
Gulf oil while also satisfying pressing domestic political interests. Over a period of decades, that effort succeeded chiefly
in giving birth to new problems. Out of these multiplying difficulties came the 9/11 attacks and their immediate sequel, a
"war on terrorism" meant to settle matters once and for all.
To state the matter bluntly, 9/11 was an expression of chickens coming home to roost, a massive strategic failure that the
ensuing military campaigns beginning in 2001 and continuing to the present moment have affirmed. Given the dimensions of that
failure, the likelihood of resuscitating X's illusory Pax is essentially zero.
There is no going back to an imagined Golden Age of American statecraft in the Middle East. The imperative is to go forward,
which requires acknowledging how wrongheaded U.S. policy in region has been ever since FDR had his famous tete-a-tete with
King Ibn Saud and Harry Truman rushed to recognize the newborn State of Israel.t
The very fact Bloomberg had to enter the Democratic Party presidential race is the definite proof Biden's corruption and involvement
on the destruction of Ukraine is so overwhelming and difficult to hide that it will eventually be impossible to cover it with
the NYT and WaPo power alone should he be chosen as the nominee.
Matt Taibbi recently coined the term MSNBC Democrats to describe those who primarily get their news from MSNBC instead of other
sources. They are more likely to believe Russiagate is a fact. According to new polling data, they are also far more likely to believe
the economy is bad.
The online poll, by data firm Morning Consult, asks the same five core questions as the University of Michigan's well-known consumer
sentiment survey, and for nearly two years has been collecting about 210,000 responses a month, compared to 500 or so each month
for the Michigan survey.
American voters face the same set of economic facts, from low unemployment to the risks from a trade war, but the survey's index
of overall sentiment - at 108 just above the 100 line that separates positive from negative impressions of the economic outlook -
masked the huge divide between those who approve of Trump, whose views measured a far rosier 136, and those who disapprove of the
president, with a reading of 88 .
The results, weighted by factors like age, race and sex, to be nationally representative, were similarly skewed based on media
consumption. Viewers of conservative-leaning Fox News registered 139 for current sentiment about the economy; viewers of MSNBC, an
outlet often critical of Trump, registered 89 . Readers of the New York Times sat in the middle at 107, near those who get their
news from Facebook (110) and Twitter (112).
This chart from the article shows respondents' view of the economy by news source:
The results shouldn't be surprising to anyone paying attention. MSNBC is in the liberal fake news business while Fox is in the
conservative fake news business. Interestingly, the New York Times falls in the middle. This sort of makes sense. While I don't trust
their political reporting, especially anything Russiagate related, their coverage of the economy does seem to be fair and balanced.
I think the economy is shit, personally, and professionally. It's pretty expensive to live these days.
Negative interest rates are not what I would expect in a functioning economy... And say nothing of corporate balance sheets,
gold repatriation and denials of repatriation, Q4, and a shit ton of big banksters just dying to have a bail-in.
But, I think that the MSNBC Democrat would simply blame Drumpf.
Just found it an interesting angle to essay. Stopped clocks and whatnot.
He is definitely a "CIA democrat" like Obama before him
Notable quotes:
"... In the media, Buttigieg is described as a 37-year-old "boy wonder," an "intelligent and worldly man" who speaks seven languages, whose speeches on the campaign trail exude intelligence and thoughtfulness, a former Rhodes scholar and graduate of Harvard and Oxford, who, driven by the ideal of public service, returned to his humble Midwestern roots to become mayor of his impoverished hometown, and who single-handedly sparked a renaissance in South Bend after a half-century of urban decay. ..."
"... Buttigieg has distinguished himself by his reluctance to take concrete positions on major political questions. His campaign website initially had no reference to policies, speaking only of the need to restore "values." ..."
"... As the campaign has developed, Buttigieg has taken substantive political positions that demonstrate he is a thoroughly establishment figure, aligned more with the "moderate" wing of the Democrats headed by former Vice President Joe Biden, and flatly opposed to the policies identified with Sanders ..."
"... Buttigieg was talent-spotted early and has moved in the top circles of the US national security establishment from the time he left college. From 2004 to 2005 (when he was 22 and 23), he worked as a conference director for the Cohen Group, a Washington-based consultancy that advises clients on international investment strategies. ..."
"... This aspect of Buttigieg's resumé closely resembles that of Barack Obama, who worked for CIA-connected Business International at age 21-22, making connections within the national security apparatus that stood him in good stead during his meteoric political rise. ..."
"... From 2007 to 2010, the year before his first mayoral campaign, Buttigieg served as a consultant at McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm with revenues of over $10 billion. ..."
"... Media comments suggest that the Democratic Party sees one of the functions of Buttigieg's campaign as preventing Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination. ..."
"... However, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, Buttigieg's most important credential by far is his military record. Between 2009 and 2017, Buttigieg was a lieutenant and naval intelligence officer in the Naval Reserve. ..."
"... According to a report in the Hill , "Buttigieg's reserve training took place at Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago, where he studied to become an intelligence officer. There, Buttigieg's background as a McKinsey consultant and his Rhodes scholar pedigree earned him a direct commission into the Navy." ..."
"... Two of the seven languages in which Buttigieg claims fluency are Arabic and Dari (the Afghan dialect of Persian, spoken by about one-third of the population). Such language skills are likely the product of intensive military-intelligence training. ..."
"... The presence of ex-military officers in the Democratic field is part of a larger process, the direct incorporation of military and intelligence figures into the leading personnel of the Democratic Party, a phenomenon the World Socialist Web Site identified among Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018 (see: The CIA Democrats ). ..."
The World Socialist Web Site has begun an occasional series of articles
profiling the major candidates for the Democratic Party presidential nomination in the 2020
elections.WSWSwriters will examine the political history and program of each
candidate, making the case for a socialist alternative for the working class to both the
Democrats and the Trump administration. The first article, onElizabeth Warren ,
appeared on July 11.
Over the past six months, Pete Buttigieg has emerged as a potential dark horse candidate
in the Democratic Party presidential primaries. The two-term mayor of South Bend, Indiana --
now referred to by the shorthand title "Mayor Pete" -- has gained extensive media coverage
and built a fundraising machine, raking in $24.8 million in the second quarter of 2019, the
most for any Democrat.
Buttigieg has been the most aggressive holder of high-dollar fundraisers, attending dozens
of such events, particularly in California and the northeast, and raising much of his money
from Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
His poll numbers have not responded in direct proportion to the build-up, however. He
regularly appears in fifth place, making him the lowest in the top tier of candidates. And
his campaign received a significant blow in mid-June with the killing of a black resident of
South Bend by a white cop, which forced Buttigieg to leave the campaign trail briefly to deal
with the crisis.
Three factors account for Buttigieg's rise. His age, 37, is in sharp contrast to the two
top candidates when he entered the race, Joe Biden, 76, and Bernie Sanders, 77, to say
nothing of the geriatric leadership of the House Democrats: Nancy Pelosi, 79, Steny Hoyer,
80, and Jim Clyburn, 79. He is the only openly gay candidate among the 24 primary
contestants, married to another gay man, Chasten Glezman. And most importantly -- from the
standpoint of his acceptability to the US ruling elite -- he is a veteran of naval
intelligence, having served a tour of duty in Afghanistan, where he helped identify targets
for assassination squads.
These attributes -- comparative youth, identity as a gay man and a background in military
intelligence, together with his public embrace of religion (he is a practicing Episcopalian)
-- make Buttigieg something of a made-to-order candidate from the standpoint of the
Democratic Party establishment. His candidacy ticks a number of boxes: anchoring the primary
campaign in a right-wing national security perspective; employing youth and identity to
appeal to the predominately youthful supporters of Sanders; and elevating a right-wing figure
as a "next-generation" leader of the Democrats, although perhaps a more likely candidate for
the vice presidency than the top job.
The American public could be forgiven for wondering why the mayor of a small Midwestern
city (306th largest in the country) has suddenly appeared on their television screens in
extensive and mostly favorable news reports that paint him as a serious candidate for the
Democratic nomination.
Buttigieg's only other foray into national politics was a failed 2017 bid for chair of the
Democratic National Committee (DNC), a position that attracts relatively little public
attention. A poll from late March found that 62 percent of respondents did not even know who
Buttigieg was, although extensive media coverage has caused that figure to fall rapidly.
In the media, Buttigieg is described as a 37-year-old "boy wonder," an "intelligent and
worldly man" who speaks seven languages, whose speeches on the campaign trail exude
intelligence and thoughtfulness, a former Rhodes scholar and graduate of Harvard and Oxford,
who, driven by the ideal of public service, returned to his humble Midwestern roots to become
mayor of his impoverished hometown, and who single-handedly sparked a renaissance in South
Bend after a half-century of urban decay.
As usual, the media depiction is largely at odds with reality.
One of the most noteworthy features of Buttigieg's campaign so far is its political
amorphousness. Even by the standards of American capitalist elections, where issues of
concern to the working class are systematically excluded from the public discussion,
Buttigieg has distinguished himself by his reluctance to take concrete positions on major
political questions. His campaign website initially had no reference to policies, speaking
only of the need to restore "values."
As the campaign has developed, Buttigieg has taken substantive political positions that
demonstrate he is a thoroughly establishment figure, aligned more with the "moderate" wing of
the Democrats headed by former Vice President Joe Biden, and flatly opposed to the policies
identified with Sanders. Buttigieg rejects the single-payer "Medicare for All" slogan
proposed by Sanders and taken up by many other Democrats in favor of the establishment of a
"public option" available on the health insurance exchanges set up under Obamacare.
One proposal that has garnered media attention is his plan to expand the Supreme Court to
15 judges, a cosmetic change that would not alter the fundamental character of the court as a
bastion of political reaction. He has also called for elimination of the Electoral College,
although this would require passage of a constitutional amendment, which is highly
unlikely.
Voters would certainly find little in Buttigieg's political record, consisting of a
two-term stint as mayor of South Bend, to inspire enthusiasm. In the press, Buttigieg is
touted as a "turnaround" mayor who has placed the ailing former factory town and site of the
University of Notre Dame on the road to economic recovery.
In actual fact, his main achievements include the bulldozing of hundreds of empty homes in
blighted working class neighborhoods, the sprucing up of the downtown area, and the
attraction of modest investment from IT corporations, measures whose impact is not to lift
working class residents out of poverty, but rather to gentrify the city and drive up real
estate values. Even a favorable review of "Mayor Pete's" time in office by an Indiana
economist was forced to admit that "other than sharing in the unemployment-rate reductions of
the national economic expansion, none of the top-line economic indicators for South Bend have
changed markedly over Buttigieg's mayoral stint."
The New York Times wrote in a profile: "Some of the data is dismal. Though the
overall poverty rate has fallen since Mr. Buttigieg took office, poverty among
African-Americans stubbornly remains almost twice as high as for African-Americans
nationwide. The city has one of the highest eviction rates in the country, which has doubled
under the mayor, according to the Eviction Lab at Princeton University. In households with
working adults, 54 percent do not earn enough to meet a 'survival budget,' according to the
United Way."
A glaring spotlight was placed on the actual state of affairs in South Bend on June 16,
when a white policeman shot to death a 53-year-old black man, Eric Logan. The cop, who had
been previously linked to reports of brutality, was equipped with a body camera but did not
turn it on when he confronted Logan in a parking lot and shot him fatally, claiming that
Logan had menaced him with a knife.
Buttigieg had to leave the campaign trail and return to South Bend, appearing at town hall
meetings where he and the police force were loudly denounced. While police killings are not
primarily a racial issue -- the largest number of those killed by police are white, and
minority police shoot people just as frequently as white police -- there is clearly a large
element of racial injustice in South Bend. The city is 40 percent nonwhite, but under
Buttigieg's leadership the proportion of African-American police has fallen from 10 percent
in 2011 to only 5 percent today. At the Democratic debate in Miami, Buttigieg claimed to have
tried and failed to recruit a more diverse police force.
Given this mediocre record, what recommends "Mayor Pete" for promotion to the highest
levels of the American state? Clearly, other factors are driving his buildup in the
media.
Buttigieg was talent-spotted early and has moved in the top circles of the US national
security establishment from the time he left college. From 2004 to 2005 (when he was 22 and
23), he worked as a conference director for the Cohen Group, a Washington-based consultancy
that advises clients on international investment strategies.
The Cohen Group is headed by former Republican Senator William Cohen, who was secretary of
defense under Democratic President Bill Clinton. Its principals, besides Cohen, include Marc
Grossman, undersecretary of state for political affairs in the Bush administration and
special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan under Obama; retired General Joseph
Ralston, who concluded a 37-year Air Force career as chief of the European command and
supreme allied commander, Europe; and Nicholas Burns, US ambassador to NATO and Grossman's
successor as undersecretary of state for political affairs under Bush.
This aspect of Buttigieg's resumé closely resembles that of Barack Obama, who
worked for CIA-connected Business International at age 21-22, making connections within the
national security apparatus that stood him in good stead during his meteoric political
rise.
From 2007 to 2010, the year before his first mayoral campaign, Buttigieg served as a
consultant at McKinsey & Company, an international consulting firm with revenues of over
$10 billion.
Media comments suggest that the Democratic Party sees one of the functions of Buttigieg's
campaign as preventing Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination. An opinion piece in the
Washington Post headlined "Buttigieg might save the Democratic Party from Sanders,"
applauded Buttigieg's public criticism of Sanders' occasional use of the word "socialism."
Buttigieg said: "I think of myself as progressive. But I also believe in capitalism, but it
has to be democratic capitalism." The Post author commented: "In many ways, Buttigieg
is ideally suited to take on Sanders for the hearts, minds and political survival of the
Democratic Party."
While the Democrats know that Sanders poses no threat to American capitalism, they are
determined to prevent social opposition within the working class from finding even a
distorted reflection in their general election campaign, as in 2016, when the DNC attempted
to sabotage Sanders' primary campaign.
However, from the standpoint of the American ruling class, Buttigieg's most important
credential by far is his military record. Between 2009 and 2017, Buttigieg was a lieutenant
and naval intelligence officer in the Naval Reserve.
According to a report in the Hill , "Buttigieg's reserve training took place at
Naval Station Great Lakes in North Chicago, where he studied to become an intelligence
officer. There, Buttigieg's background as a McKinsey consultant and his Rhodes scholar
pedigree earned him a direct commission into the Navy."
"We had group of young, accomplished civilians -- assistant US attorneys and FBI agents,"
Thomas Gary, a senior petty officer at the Great Lakes station at the time, told the
Hill . "Pete fit right in."
In 2014, during his first term as mayor, Buttigieg was deployed to Afghanistan, where he
was a member of the Afghan Threat Finance Cell, a counter-terrorism group established in 2008
by then-commanding General David Petraeus. Through his work in this task force, Buttigieg was
involved in activities that placed individuals on the US military's "kill or capture list,"
targeting these opponents of the US occupation for assassination or extraordinary rendition
to a CIA black site.
Two of the seven languages in which Buttigieg claims fluency are Arabic and Dari (the
Afghan dialect of Persian, spoken by about one-third of the population). Such language skills
are likely the product of intensive military-intelligence training.
The presence of ex-military officers in the Democratic field is part of a larger process,
the direct incorporation of military and intelligence figures into the leading personnel of
the Democratic Party, a phenomenon the World Socialist Web Site identified among
Democratic candidates for Congress in 2018 (see: The CIA Democrats ).
Buttigieg is also on the board of directors of the Truman Center, an imperialist foreign
policy group. Other board members include former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and
Leon Panetta, former CIA director and secretary of defense. The Truman Center is a veritable
training center for CIA Democrats, offering workshops and messaging guidelines for
up-and-coming politicians. It boasts on its website: "Our community includes more than 1,700
post-9/11 veterans, frontline civilians, policy experts, and political professionals who
share a common vision of US leadership abroad."
Buttigieg's relative silence on foreign policy issues cannot be explained by a disinterest
or lack of knowledge. It can be explained only as a deliberate attempt to avoid airing views
he knows are widely unpopular, but which are mainstream within the Democratic Party.
When he finally delivered a significant foreign policy address, in May, it was at the
Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University, which is
named in honor of former Democratic Congressman Lee H. Hamilton and former Republican Senator
Richard G. Lugar, both pillars of the foreign policy establishment.
Buttigieg denounced China for "authoritarian capitalism" and a poor record on human
rights, citing in particular the plight of Muslim Uighurs in Sinkiang, a longtime target of
CIA efforts to destabilize the Beijing regime. He called for stepped-up US investment in
infrastructure and education in order to "compete for the global economic future." And he
referred sarcastically to Trump's dealings with Moscow, calling Russia "not a real estate
opportunity but an adversarial actor."
In 2018, the Truman Center released a messaging pamphlet for elected officials and
candidates that completely coincides with the Democrats' right-wing campaign against Trump
over foreign policy. The first section, for example, declares Russia an "historic adversary"
of the United States and asserts that the intelligence community (which is directly
represented on the Truman Center's board) has "decisively confirmed" that Russia "interfered"
in the 2016 elections.
In light of Buttigieg's national security background, his campaign proposal for the
establishment of a "national service" program has particularly ominous implications.
Buttigieg argues that such a program is necessary to promote a feeling of unity and "social
cohesion" within the American population. In reality, such a program would amount to a return
to the draft, combined perhaps with labor conscription, which could be used to suppress wages
and living standards in the working class.
Whether or not Buttigieg ultimately wins the nomination, and at this point the possibility
seems remote, his sudden elevation in advance of the primaries flows from definite political
considerations within the Democratic Party itself. Whoever ultimately wins the nomination
must be acceptable to the corporate aristocracy and the military apparatus the Democrats
represent. However, the debacle of the Hillary Clinton campaign revealed, much to the
Democrats' surprise, that any figure publicly identified with social inequality and war is
liable to be deeply hated, particularly within the working class.
Within this context, Buttigieg has emerged as a figure whose particular combination of
personal characteristics -- his youth, his sexual identity as a gay man, his association with
the industrial Midwest where Clinton was wiped out by Trump, his media-concocted reputation
for intelligent public speaking, and, above all, his lack of a well-known political track
record -- might serve as a more suitable package for the same brand of politics.
One gets the sense that the Democratic Party is attempting replicate its success with
Barack Obama, whose formless demagogy about "hope" and "change" was able to divert popular
hostility to the political establishment, allowing the voters to see in him what they wanted
to see. Buttigieg's status as the first gay man to become a serious presidential hopeful
would thus parallel Obama's role as the "first black president."
In the context of popular disillusionment with eight bitter years under Obama, however, it
is unlikely the Democrats will be able to pull off the same trick twice.
"... In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination. ..."
"... Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village. ..."
"... Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining the status quo. ..."
In reality intelligence agencies control the nomination.
Pics or it didn't happen.
I am very sorry and sincerely apologize. Please view this as a plausible hypothesis ;-)
Some considerations (neoliberals and neocons usually interpret those facts differently so this is a view from paleoconservative
universe; you are warned):
1. Exoneration of Hillary deprived Sanders of chances to lead Democratic ticket in 2016. This is as close to the proven fact as
we can get.
2. Russiagate and the DNC hacking scandal were the attempts to reverse the presidential election. Essentially Russiagate was created
to tame Trump, although I am not sure that such drastic measures were needed and I might be wrong. He betrayed his election promises
with such an ease that Russiagate now looks like a paranoid overreaction of the USA intelligence agencies (and former FBI director
Mueller of 9/11 and anthrax investigation fame) Which figuratively speaking moved tanks to capture the unnamed native village.
3. JFK and then Robert Kennedy assassination. The key role of the CIA in the JFK assassination now is broadly accepted in the
USA.
3. Obama connection to CIA was subject of many articles, especially in the alt-right press. He definitely was raised in a family
of CIA operatives.
4. Brennan spied on Congress and was not fired, which means that the CIA hieratically is above the Congress. Proven fact.
In short, nothing in the power structure of democratic societies prevents intelligence agencies from becoming key political actors,
the Pretorian guard which selects the Presidents by keeping dirt on politicians and controls the press (see Church commission). They
have both motivation (preservation and enhancement of their status as any large bureaucracy), means (weakly controlled, oversized
budget; access to shadow funds from arms and narcotics trading) and skills (covert operations, disinformation, sabotage. This triad
is inherent in their status as the legalized mafia which operates above the law. As Pompeo recently said in a recent speech at Texas
A&M University CIA operatives lie and cheat and steal.
When intelligence agencies control MSM that alone gives them considerable power to influence the political process. For example,
in the case of Russiagate, we saw well organized and timed series of leaks. So, in fact, they can be viewed as the "Inner Party"
in terms of Orwell dystopia 1984.
And the fact of media control is a proven fact. And not only via Church commission. Dr. Ulfkotte went on public television stating
that he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, also adding that noncompliance with these orders
would result in him losing his job.
Due to the nature of intelligence agencies work and the aura of secrecy control of intelligence agencies in democratic societies
is a difficult undertaking as the entity you want to control is in many ways more politically powerful and more ruthless in keeping
its privileges then controllers. And if the society preaches militarism it is outright impossible: any politician deviation from
militaristic policies will be met with the counterattack of intelligence agencies which are intimately interested in maintaining
the status quo.
In any case, the problem of "the tail wagging the dog" is a problem for any country, not only for the USA. The fact that both
Brennan and Clapper become 'talking heads' after retirement tells something about the trend. Such things would be impossible 20 years
ago.
Some insights into the problem can be obtained by reading the article about the politicization of intelligence agencies in other
countries. For example:
Ultimately, making the intelligence agencies accountable amounts to a broader reevaluation of the larger framework of civil-military
relations. As a result, not only is intelligence reform an almost intractable political issue, but it also requires a complete
change of mentality for the actors involved. Reigning in the intelligence agencies is a problem of a deeper political culture,
one that requires a systemic change in the psychology of the organizations.
the lack of civilian oversight of intelligence agencies is a byproduct of the political imbalance between civilian and military
actors, a power structure that favors the latter.
As long as the military can get its way through seemingly constitutional means, the importance of the intelligence agencies
will remain relatively limited. Their role, however, becomes essential whenever the military meets some resistance
the military's domestic political power "has always derived from [its] ability to mediate confrontations among feuding political
leaders, parties or state institutions, invariably presented as threats to the political order and stability. The military [is]
of course the only institution empowered to judge whether such threats existed based on the assumption that a polity in turmoil
cannot sustain a professional military" (Rizvi 1998: 100). Yet whenever necessary, the military has not hesitated to generate
problems itself if it believes its institutional interests would be better served by a weak and divided polity. This is where
the intelligence agencies come into play.
the link between journalists and the intelligence agencies is a complex one, and cannot be reduced to a simple power dynamic
in which the journalists are merely the victim. Journalists need information, and thus have an interest in maintaining a good
relationship with intelligence agencies. In return, journalists are often asked to provide information themselves to intelligence
agencies.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
The problem is more complex than just CIA. The Deep state encompass more players and it replaced elected officials (surface
state) while elections now provide mostly function of legitimizing the rule of the Deep State
Notable quotes:
"... The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle. ..."
"... Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country. ..."
The growth of the USA is going to depend on the ability of the people in government to
disband the Central Intelligence Agency which has become a bottleneck in the progress of the
USA. The USA cannot grow as long as you have such a powerful bottleneck similar to a dictator
with absolute power.
The truth is as the world's economy becomes free of the US and its think-tanks, the world
gets richer but those of us in the USA who make our living by working and getting paid will
become poorer. Our money will not be able to cover for a good lifestyle.
Its sad to see the disastrous policies of the CIA's economic unit has to be paid by the
hard working US citizens who only want a good life like everyone else. We did not ask for the
CIA, the CIA imposed itself on us, making the decisions without our consent. Now we pay for
their disastrous policies by becoming a third world country.
We are being left behind .... China is going to keep growing... there is nothing the USA
can do to stop her now. If war is used, the USA will lose, if economics of scale is compared
the USA loses. China is a giant with an almost monolithic population of over one billion. Can
you imagine what an educated country with over one billion people can do???
The USA has a lot of blacks, hispanics, asians, Arabs etc, we are not a single group of
people. While diversity is a good thing when you have a lot of money to keep everyone happy,
poverty will be the enermy of diversity. People will be at each other's jugulars fighting for
the little scraps of wealth left behind after the big and powerful grab all they can.
We are into a very hard future in the USA.... no thanks to the silly Central Intelligence
Agency. For heavens sake, cant the CIA learn from Chinese or Russian intelligence???? How do
the intelligence agencies of the Chinese or Russians operate? Learn instead of sitting on the
silly high horse thinking US intelligence is anything but primitive and third rate!
Now the entire USA has to pay for the silly inteliigence agencies which keep expanding
with acronyms like rats!
That's a great interview that summarizes Russiagate in a very assessable way. This is exactly repetition of Iraq WDM and
subsequent cover up. The consequence is a new higher level of discreditation of neoliberal MSM, at least by Trump supporters They
will just ignore those bottomfeeders like Clapper and Brennan.
Endemic of Russophobia is the biggest net result of Russiagate. This is also a big election gift to Trump.
The Deep State did not view Trump as a reliable steward of neoliberal empire and that's why Russiagate was unleashed. And Trump
is an embarrassment to the empire, no questions about it.
MadCow spend two year rabidly promoting Russiagate nonsense and she still has her job. That's suggest whom she
serves. In other cased she would be discarded like used condom.
Chris Hedges discusses with Nation reporter Aaron Mate how despite the categorical statement in Robert Mueller's report that Donald
Trump and his campaign did not collude with Russia, the conspiracy theories by the nation's mainstream media show little sign of
diminishing.
We're all still waiting for MSDNC to bring on Aaron, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey and others on any of their
programs. MSDNC has not had on one single lefty who got this fraudulent and disgraceful Stalinesque political investigation right
from day one since December of 2016. Not one.
I've got to admit, I get a massive dopamine rush hearing these two sane, intelligent,critical thinkers, skillfully dissect
this convoluted quadrafuck that has wasted some much of our precious time. I literally feel washed clean for a moment.
Highly recommenced to listen. Judge Napolitano is an interesting speaker (start at 41 min)
As CIA in the USA government organizational chart stands above the Presidential Office Hillary is really untouchable, unless the
Presidential Office is also occupied by CIA-democrat like Obama.
Notable quotes:
"... She absolutely thinks she is untouchable ..."
"... Every corrupt person was praised and given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!! ..."
"... Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25% of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States. ..."
Congress is a waste of tax money, they have no power, so obvious! Criminal leaders just lie to them, knowing they can't do
a thing and most of them are paid off anyway, they don't want to do anything! Elections are rigged, so they don't have to worry
about, "we the poor, lowly people!" We are not even in the equation!
Why is this pathological liar Hillary still running around free ?? Isn't lying to Congress a felony ??? If this lowlife is
simply above the law lets change the laws !
Prosecute everyone of them that knew and allowed even the smallest bit of knowledge and make every one of them ineligible for
their pensions. They do not deserve those pensions, they stole them, treasonous acts against your government does not make you
eligable..they do not deserve it!!
Not only a habitual serial liar but a career Criminal! Hillary and Bill have been involved in illegal manners for over 40 years!
Hillary stated it best last year during the time of the election!. " If Donald Trump becomes president, WE WILL ALL HANG!" She
finally told the truth!
She absolutely thinks she is untouchable because not one person has been brave enough and bold enough to take her
down the Clinton's have been corrupt and evil from child good and they were taught from NWO that they will never be taken down
go child rob steel kill do everything in the power we Give you both and bring me all glory!!! We will let you control the United
States as long as you want!!!
All the connected deaths that embrace the Clinton's and not single piece of evidence is kept found
or stored that it doesn't come up missing so they sit back and allow these foreign governments to take over major areas and promote
child sex trafficking who're houses with kids being sold to any man with air in his lungs!
Every corrupt person was praised and
given more power!!! Hillary sat back and knew of all the raping that bill was doing to kids teenagers young ladies boys young
men and she never blinked an eye!!! If a simple tax paying citizen was to pull the bullshit that Hillary has pulled in front of
Howdy that citizen would be see the lights day until Jesus came and took us home to Heaven!!
She gas lied straight face looked him dead in the eyes and laughed at the bengahzi deaths that She is on record having him
killed she laughed and she didn't Give a f*** about killing him and leaving his remains behind but my question is why hasn't she
been arrested booked finger printed and mugshot took with a huge bond or mot and put behind bars until you beat the f******truth
out if her??? I would get the death penalty she wouldn't and hasn't gotten a contempt of court for not complying with mr. Gowdy
Hillary Clinton actually says in this video that half of Trump supporters are "deplorable". That is equivalent to roughly 25%
of the American population! That constitutes a very strong statement from someone who wants to be president of The United States.
To say that 80 million people are "deplorable" IS TRULY DEPLORABLE!!! After hearing this I can't really understand WHY she got
even a single vote!
This is a fantastic mosaic of the state of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. It is absolutely clear that she is an
habitual liar, corrupt to the extreme and has absolutely no credibility.
I'd love to see Mr Gowdy take the gloves off and take
her down. She must be removed from the public as she is a menace. She is the mother of deplorable.
"... The CIA fabricated a story that the Russians in Afghanistan made plastic bombs in the shape of toys, to blow up children. Casey repeated this story, knowing it to be disinformation, as fact to US journalists and politicians. ..."
Bill Bray , Former (Retired) Research Scientist at Central
Intelligence Agency
Updated Dec 14 2017 · Author has 509 answers and 261.9k answer views
I am not familiar with that particular quote, but that sounds like the hubris of the CIA. You have to understand, you put a janitor
in charge of the other janitors, and he becomes king shit of the janitors. And so it goes all the way to the point where you put
someone in charge of an agency which no longer answers to the president, the senate, congress, the UN, or any force on Earth, there
is no way you are not going to have anything but a problem. JFK wanted to dissolve them for that reason, 6 months later
If you really want to take the Dr. Bill acid test, go into Google AdWords. That is where they sell key words to the highest bidder
so that their site floats to the top (no it is not 'free information highway,' that's how Google became a multi-billion organization).
Watch the key words that are floating to the top. Then, look at tomorrow morning's headlines in Google, Yahoo, MSN, etc. You will
find that magically the minds of Americans predicted the next day's news.
This of course is not the case. The multi-trillion dollar surveillance of Americans that they told you is to 'protect you from
terrorists,' and so on is not what they are doing. All cell phone calls (the verbal content, referred to as meta-data), emails, text,
are monitored. Since the Patriot Act portion that allowed this to expire, they used the clause 'on American soil,' literally and
monitor everything via the communications satellites. There are also an estimated 20,000 drones OVER (BUT NOT ON) US soil, monitoring
verbal communications that are not electronic. This can be done via unidirectional microphone, or by bouncing a laser off your window.
That includes car window.
The Welcome to FBI.gov web site collects information, but is easier to access at
Mass Shootings . In 2016 there were 384 mass shootings, almost 100
of which were listed as 'terrorist motivated.' So, the multi-trillion dollar surveillance network is not to 'protect you.'
The system is designed to gather information on the 'collective thinking,' like the Borg, of the American public, and then design
tomorrow's news and media, literally overnight, to cattle herd you into a nice neat profile of behavior and commerce.
Again, take the acid test. Look at what you have access to, AdWords, and then watch tomorrow's headlines magically appear. At
first you might think, well that's what people are interested in so that's what's in the news. Then, as you look at the flow of headlines
regarding international campaigns, what the President said yesterday, what the senators and congressmen are doing or being accused
of, it starts to get a bit freaky. Do this for several days, and you will see.
If this doesn't convince you, you fit a nice neat profile of behavior and commerce.
Otherwise, explain the multi-trillion dollar surveillance network's failure to prevent 384 mass shootings last year, of which
about 1 in 4 were 'terrorist motivated,' and I think we already passed that number this year.
You know the system is in place, the NSA admitted it publicly. The reason they say it is there is obviously not true, as per a
hundred terrorist motivated events each year, hundreds of mass shootings, most of which never make it into the 'fake news.'
Every time the President says 'fake news,' your brain says 'conspiracy theory,' and hardens your cognitive belief, your religion,
the media.
Keeping you stupid keeps you under control. If this were not the case, disinformation would not be a goal. 1.7k Views ·
View Upvoters ·
It does appear he said something very much along those lines, though I doubt it meant what it appears to mean absent the context.
He made the statement not long after he became the Director of Central Intelligence, during a discussion of the fact that, to his
amazement, about 80 percent of the contents of typical CIA intelligence publications was based on information from open, unclassified
sources, such as newspapers and magazines. Apparently, and reasonably, he judged that about the same proportion of Soviet intelligence
products was probably based on open sources, as well. That meant that CIA disinformation programs directed at the USSR wouldn't work
unless what was being disseminated by US magazines and newspapers on the same subjects comported with what the CIA was trying to
sell the Soviets. Given that the CIA could not possibly control the access to open sources of all US publications, the subjects of
CIA disinformation operations had to be limited to topics not being covered by US public media. To be sure, some items of disinformation
planted by the CIA in foreign publications might subsequently be discovered and republished by US media. I'm guessing the CIA would
not leap to correct those items.
But that is a far cry from concluding that the CIA would (or even could) arrange that "everything the American public believes
is false."
The American public has never been the primary target
of any disinformation campaign.
The CIA once had influence in a number of English language publications abroad, some of which stories were reprinted in the US
media. This was known as "blowback", and unintended in most cases.
The CIA fabricated a story that the Russians in Afghanistan made plastic bombs in the shape of toys, to blow up children. Casey
repeated this story, knowing it to be disinformation, as fact to US journalists and politicians.
span y Bob In Portland on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 3:59pm Under the general rubric of
conspiracy theory is the subset called "coincidence theory", which dismisses connections
between people as mere happenstance in order to dismiss any thought of networks that exist
beyond public scrutiny. But these networks do exist. Sometimes history takes decades to find
them, but they exist. Let's take a peek at networks in Paul Manafort's life.
Manafort was an advisor for four Republican presidential candidates: Gerald Ford, Ronald
Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bob Dole. Three of these men were connected to the CIA. Gerald Ford
was on the Warren Commission and helped its conclusions of a single assassin by moving the
bullet hole several inches up from JFK's back to the back of JFK's neck. It was an obvious
fraud, and he should have been prosecuted as an accessory after the fact. There are other
indications that he was involved with the CIA's mind control program prior to his political
career. Ronald Reagan while governor of California blocked extradition requests from New
Orleans DA Jim Garrison in the investigation into President Kennedy's murder. Reagan was
governor at the time of JFK's brother's assassination in Los Angeles. I'll refer readers to
Lisa Pease's A LIE TOO BIG TO FAIL about Reagan during that time. Reagan was also the spokesman
for the Crusade For Freedom, a CIA psyop started in the 1950s which in conjunction with Radio
Free Europe promoted former Nazis and fascists allied with Hitler during WWII and which
imported many of these Nazis into the US. George HW Bush was the CIA Director under Ford, and
investigations put him as a CIA agent or asset since his college days at Yale. I haven't looked
at Bob Dole's history. But three out of four of Manafort's presidential employers had roots in
the CIA.
If you look at Paul Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators who were
either put into power by the CIA, supported while in power by the CIA or taken out of power by
the CIA. And sometimes killed by the CIA. I would suggest that Manafort's ultimate employer was
the CIA. After the sitting president of the Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed
coup in Ukraine back in 2014 (under Secretary of State John Kerry) Manafort stuck around there
and helped the people who ousted Yanukovich. Even though Yanukovich was the duly elected
president of Ukraine, he has been dismissed as a Russian agent because he saw that the terms of
Russian treaties with Ukraine would be better for the economy than treaties with the European
Union. Therefore, the US branded Yanukovich as a Russian agent.
Just to refresh everyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in the seventies until he
got his law degree. He was named Attorney General by President GHW Bush (the first Bush
president) during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA
operation to illegally support the contras' attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government
while also illegally arming both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in
Beruit. The interagency team investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and
perished returning to the US.
Robert Mueller was the prosecutor in the Pan Am 103 case. He shifted the case to a couple of
Libyan jamokes and away from a group of Palestinian terrorists operating in Frankfurt, Germany
who allegedly were supplied the bomb used to bring down the airliner by Syrian arms and heroin
smuggler Monzer al-Kassar. Al-Kassar was a major arms supplier for the Iran-contra operation.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA ranks. Mueller's wife, Ann
Cabell Standish, whom he married three years after the John F Kennedy assassination, was the
granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann
Mueller's granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's
assassination there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset in a recent declassification of JFK
papers.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA
covert activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which
has been identified as having arrived in the US via Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-contra
drug importation operation. Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man in Panama, where the CIA laundered
money and moved cocaine and weapons for the contras during Iran-contra. The federal prosecutor
in the Mena corner of Arkansas at the time of the Mena operations who steered clear of it was
Asa Hutchinson, who went on to become George W Bush's first "drug czar". (More curiously, the
person leading the failed attempt to uncover Iran-contra in the US Senate was John Kerry, who
just happened to be a teammate of Mueller on their prep school lacrosse team many years
earlier.)
Mueller prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money)
without seeing CIA fingerprints. Mueller became the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Look it up.
Some more: Go read Gregory Craig's Wiki page. Robert Mueller just indicted Craig along
the lines of Manafort, a la aiding Russians (actually representing Ukrainians). Craig himself
has an interesting past. He was the lawyer defending John Hinckley for the assassination
attempt on Ronald Reagan, which, if succcessful, would have put GHW Bush into the White House;
Craig defended CIA Director Richard Helms for his part in the coup of Salvador Allende; he was
the State Department's director of policy planning under Madeleine Albright; Craig worked with
Bill Clinton on his impeachment proceedings; he represented the Cuban father in the Elian
Gonzalez case. Craig was on the other side of the Noriega case.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega and Craig defended him. Craig helped Obama flipflop his position
over the FISA court and the big communications corporations who cooperated with them. Craig
represented John Edwards. And, of course, he did work in UKRAINE.
I realize that some people in the left-right political universe will rejoice that a
"Democrat" is being indicted, but Craig's history suggests that like Manafort, Mueller, Barr
and others he represents a party across the river in Langley, Virginia. Very interesting, he
and Mueller going toe to toe as Noriega was put behind bars without a hint of Noriega's
Iran-contra work for Bush and the CIA. If you've got both the prosecutor and the defense
attorney you're going to win the trial.
It's a small world after all, but you won't hear Rachel Maddow repeat long-winded linkages
among these characters in her stories.
CIA psyops where ever you look. Curious or should I say Q reous? Cause Q sure seems CIA to
me....or so says Seth Rich...no he said DNC=CIA. up 8 users have voted. —
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty
stream.”
@Lookout
At some point the Democratic Party was rolled. Bill Clinton got the big speech at the 1988
convention. He certainly wasn't the speaker he became. That speech went on and on. Then next
time around he won the presidency in a three-way race with a funny Texas billionaire and
George Bush.
When Bill went to Oxford his classmates presumed he was CIA.
Our election of 1992 may have been to promote Clinton while taking the heat away from GHW
Bush.
@The
Alarmist Trump doesn't strike me as someone with principles or opinions of his own. He
will say and do whatever his base of "deplorables" likes to hear and whatever helps him get
what he wants.
At CNN's town hall
event on Monday, the American people saw something we'd been told was impossible: Elizabeth
Warren winning over a crowd.
The Massachusetts senator took aim at a variety of subjects: the Electoral College,
Mississippi's racist state flag, the rise of
white nationalism . Always, she was met with thunderous applause. Even a simple Bible verse
-- from Matthew 25:35–40, about moral obligation to the poor and hungry -- prompted
cheers so loud and prolonged that Warren had to pause and repeat herself in order to make her
voice heard over the noise. Yet this was the same woman the media routinely frames as too
wonky, too nerdy, too socially stunted. But then, Warren has always been an exceptionally
charismatic candidate. We just forget that fact when she's campaigning -- due, in large part,
to our deep and lingering distrust for female intelligence.
Warren is bursting with what we might call "charisma" in male candidates: She has the folksy
demeanor of Joe Biden, the ferocious conviction of Bernie Sanders, the deep intelligence of
fellow law professor Barack Obama. But Warren is not a man, and so those traits are framed as
liabilities, rather than strengths. According to the media, Warren is an uptight schoolmarm, a
" wonky
professor ," a scold, a wimpy Dukakis, a wooden John Kerry, or (worse) a nerdier Al
Gore.
The criticism has hit her from the left and right. The far-right Daily Caller accused
her of looking
weird when she drank beer ; on social media, conservatives spread vicious (and viciously
ableist) rumors that Warren took antipsychotic drugs that treated "irritability caused by
autism ." On the other end
of the spectrum, Amber A'Lee Frost, the lone female co-host of the socialist podcast Chapo
Trap House , wrote for The Baffler (and, when The Baffler retracted her
article, for Jacobin) that Warren was "
weak " and "
not charismatic ." Frost deplored the "Type-A Tracy Flicks" who dared support "this Lisa
Simpson of a dark-horse candidate."
Casting Warren as a sheltered, Ivory Tower type is odd, given that her politics and diction
are not exactly elitist. Yet none of this is new; the same stereotypes were levied against
Warren in 2011, during her Senate campaign.
Strangely, the first nerdification of Warren was a purely local phenomenon -- one which
happened even as national media was falling in love with her. Jon Stewart publicly
adored her , and her ingenuity in proposing the creation of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau a few years prior earned her respect among the rising populist wing of the
party. Her fame was further catapulted when a speech -- a video of Warren speaking, seemingly
off-the-cuff , in a constituent's living room -- went viral. "Nobody in this country got
rich on his own, nobody," Warren proclaimed, pointing up the ways entrepreneurs benefit from
publicly funded services like roads and schools and fire departments.
"First-time candidates don't usually articulate a progressive economic message quite this
well," the Washington
Monthly declared . The New Yorker called it " the most important political
speech of this campaign season. " That enthusiasm continued throughout Warren's first
Senate bid. Writing for the New York Times , Rebecca Traister noted
that "the early devotion to Warren recalls the ardor once felt by many for Obama." (Obama
himself famously echoed
Warren's message -- "you didn't build that" -- on the 2012 campaign trail.)
Locally, Warren prompted a much different discussion, with scores of Massachusetts analysts
describing her as stiff and unlikable. Boston-based Democratic analyst Dan Payne bemoaned her
"know-it-all style" and wished aloud she would " be more authentic I want her to
just sound like a human being, not read the script that makes her sound like some angry,
hectoring schoolmarm." In a long profile for Boston magazine, reporter Janelle Nanos
quoted Thomas Whalen, a political historian at Boston University, who called Warren a "flawed
candidate," someone who was " desperately
trying to find a message that's going to resonate. " In that same article, Nanos asked
Warren point-blank about her "likability problem." Warren's response seemed to stem from deep
frustration: "People tell me everywhere I go why they care that I got in this race," she said.
"I can't answer the question because I literally haven't experienced what you're talking
about."
By demanding that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose.
Thankfully, she's not listening.
There's an element of gaslighting here: It only takes a reporter a few sources -- and an
op-ed columnist a single, fleeting judgment -- to declare a candidate "unlikable." After that
label has been applied, any effort the candidate makes to win people over can be cast as
"inauthentic." Likability is in this way a self-reinforcing accusation, one which is amplified
every time the candidate tries to tackle it. (Recall Hillary Clinton, who was asked about her
"likability" at seemingly
every debate or
town hall for eight straight years -- then furiously accused of pandering every time she
made an effort to seem more "approachable.")
It's significant that the "
I hate you; please respond" line of political sabotage only ever seems to be aimed at
women. It's also revealing that, when all these men talked about how Warren could win them
over, their "campaign" advice sounded suspiciously close to makeover tips. In his article,
Payne advised Warren to "lose the
granny glasses," "soften the hair," and employ a professional voice coach to "deepen her voice,
which grates on some." Payne seemed to suggest that Elizabeth Warren look like a model and
sound like a
man -- anything to disguise the grisly reality of a smart woman making her case.
Warren won her Senate race, and the "schoolmarm" stereotype largely vanished as her national
profile grew. By 2014, grassroots activists were begging her to run for president; by mid-2016,
CNN had named her " Donald Trump's chief antagonist ." She's
since given a stream of incendiary interviews and handed the contemporary women's movement its
most popular
meme . All this should be enough to prove any candidate's "charisma." Yet, now that she's
thrown her hat into the presidential ring, the firebrand has become a Poindexter once
again.
The digs at Warren's "professorial" style hurt her because, on some level, they're true.
Warren really is an intellectual, a scholar; moreover, she really is running an exceptionally
ideas-focused campaign, regularly turning out detailed and exhaustive policy proposals at a
point when most of the other candidates don't even have policy sections on their websites.
What's galling is the suggestion that this is a bad thing.
Yes, male candidates have suffered from being too smart -- just ask Gore, who ran on climate
change 20 years before it was trendy. But just as often, their intelligence helps them. Obama's
sophistication and
public reading lists endeared him to liberals. And just a few days ago, Indiana Mayor Pete
Buttigieg was widely praised for learning
Norwegian in order to read an author's untranslated works. Yet, Warren is dorky, a teacher's
pet, a try-hard Tracy Flick, or Lisa Simpson. A "know-it-all."
The "schoolmarm" stereotype now applied to Warren has always been used to demean educated
women. In the Victorian era, we called them "bluestockings" -- unmarried, unattractive women
who had dared to prioritize intellectual development over finding a man. They are, in the words
of one contemporary writer, "
frumpy and frowly in the extreme, with no social talents ." Educators say that 21st century
girls are still afraid to talk in class because of "sexist bullying" which sends the message
that smart girls are unfeminine: "For girls, peers tell them 'if you are swotty and clever and
answer too many questions, you are not attractive ,'" claims Mary
Bousted, joint general-secretary of the U.K.'s National Education Union. Female academics still
report being made to feel " unsexual, unattractive, unwomanly, and
unnatural. " We can deplore all this as antiquated thinking, but even now, grown men are
still demanding that Warren ditch her glasses or "soften" her hair -- to work on being prettier
so as to make her intelligence less threatening.
Warren is cast as a bloodless intellectual when she focuses on policy, a scolding lecturer
when she leans into her skills as a rabble-rouser; either way, her intelligence is always too
much and out of place. Her eloquence is framed, not as inspiring, but as "angry" and
"hectoring." Being an effective orator makes her "strident." It's not solely confined to the
media, but reporters seem anxious to signal-boost anyone who complains: Anonymous male
colleagues call her "irritating," telling Vanity Fair that "she projects a 'holier than
thou' attitude" and that "
she has a moralizing to her. " That same quality in male candidates is hailed as moral
clarity.
Warren is accused, in plain language, of being uppity -- a woman who has the bad grace to be
smarter than the men around her, without downplaying it to assuage their egos. But running in a
presidential race is all about proving that you are smarter than the other guy. By demanding
that Warren disguise her exceptional talents, we are asking her to lose. Thankfully, she's not
listening. She is a smart woman, after all.
"... I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode. ..."
"... The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state and the oligarchs ..."
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
"... the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
"... Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted. Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered, hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent. ..."
"... The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump, and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya. ..."
Thaks b, now that is a delightful question to pose on the eve of April fool's day.
My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the yankee imperial
machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the
results. They are panicked!
I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many
people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the
entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode.
The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state
and the oligarchs. Do any of our comrades have a handle on this type of research and the
implication for voter attitudes?
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
Elizabeth Warren had a good speech at UC-Berkeley. She focused on the middle class family balance sheet and risk shifting.
Regulatory policies and a credit based monetary system have resulted in massive real price increases in inelastic areas of demand
such as healthcare, education and housing eroding purchasing power.
Further, trade policies have put U.S. manufacturing at a massive disadvantage to the likes of China, which has subsidized
state-owned enterprises, has essentially slave labor costs and low to no environmental regulations. Unrestrained immigration policies
have resulted in a massive supply wave of semi- and unskilled labor suppressing wages.
Recommended initial steps to reform:
1. Change the monetary system-deleverage economy with the Chicago Plan (100% reserve banking) and fund massive infrastructure
lowering total factor costs and increasing productivity. This would eliminate
2. Adopt a healthcare system that drives HC to 10% to 12% of GDP. France's maybe? Medicare model needs serious reform but is
great at low admin costs.
3. Raise tariffs across the board or enact labor and environmental tariffs on the likes of China and other Asian export model
countries.
4. Take savings from healthcare costs and interest and invest in human capital–educational attainment and apprenticeships programs.
5. Enforce border security restricting future immigration dramatically and let economy absorb labor supply over time.
As I have said in other comments, I like Liz Warren a lot within the limits of what she is good at doing (i.e. not President)
such as Secretary of the Treasury etc. And I think she likes the media spotlight and to hear herself talk a little to much, but
all quibbling aside, can we clone her??? The above comment and video just reinforce "Stick to what you are really good at Liz!".
I am not a Liz Warren fan boi to the extent Lambert is of AOC, but it seems that most of the time when I hear Warren, Sanders,
or AOC say something my first reaction is "Yes, what she/he said!".
tNot so puzzling if you buy into the "Fake Wrestling" theory. Since Bill Clinton
each party gets 8 years on the throne then hands off to the other party. Dems just playing
their part as they did in the 2016 election. Both parties controlled by the corporate and
cognitive elites pursuing their globalist agenda thats occasionally masked by nationalism to
appease the herd.
China has multiple parties within the CCP. The CCP is the visible face of authority. In
the West the CCP equivalent is hidden, preferring to allow each party in turn to accept the
blame for executing their agenda. Every 8 years the herd votes for Hope and Change or the
lesser evil and watches in amazement as nothing changes and lesser evil becomes more, only to
try again in the next cycle. Kind of like Groundhog Day.
When half the population has an IQ under 100, its easy for those with IQ's 4-6 SD above
average to manipulate the herd given the tools they have today. People can be made to believe
anything and much of what people believe is not true.
"Every 8 years the herd votes for Hope and Change or the lesser evil and watches in
amazement as nothing changes and lesser evil becomes more, only to try again in the next
cycle. Kind of like Groundhog Day.....When half the population has an IQ under 100, its
easy for those with IQ's 4-6 SD above average to manipulate the herd given the tools they
have today. People can be made to believe anything and much of what people believe is not
true."
My guess is that this contempt for "the herd" must be accompanied by a very generous
estimation of your own independence of mind and superiority of intellect.
My question, is how can democracy work in the world which you describe? Or would it just
consist of the idiotic "herd" listening to your ideas, applauding and carrying out
orders?
In a recent issue of THE WEEKLY STANDARD,
Matt Labash highlighted
the sad story of Trump University, one of the Donald's biggest failures. Here's an excerpt:
But most egregious was Trump University, a purported real estate school that attracted the attention of New York's attorney general,
who brought a $40 million suit on behalf of 5,000 people. The New York Times described Trump U as "a bait-and-switch scheme,"
with students lured "by free sessions, then offered packages ranging from $10,000 to $35,000 for sham courses that were supposed
to teach them how to become successful real estate investors." Though Trump himself was largely absentee, one advertisement featured
him proclaiming, "Just copy exactly what I've done and get rich." While some students were hoping to glean wisdom directly from
the success oracle, there was no such luck. At one seminar, attendees were told they'd get to have their picture taken with Trump.
Instead, they ended up getting snapped with his cardboard cutout. What must have been a crushing disappointment to aspiring real
estate barons is a boon to Republican-primary metaphor hunters.
Read the whole article
here , which documents
Trump at his Trumpiest, from his penchant for cheating at golf to his sensitivity to being called a "short-fingered vulgarian."
Michael Warrenis a senior writer at The
Weekly Standard.
The problem with your views is that there is no liberals in the USA per se. Most are in
reality neoliberals and as such are the part of the right, if we define right as those who
want to increase the power of capital vs. labor.
This flavor of democracy for top 1% the they promote (one dollar one vote) should be
property called "oligarchy" or at best "polyarchy" (the power of the top 10%).
The rest (aka "Debt slaves") are second class citizens and are prevented from political
self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any form of political participation.
In best Roman tradition it is substituted with the participation in political shows ("Bread
and circuses"). In a way US election is the ultimate form of "bait and switch" maneuvers of
the ruling elite.
The two party system invented by the elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for
neoliberal regimes, which practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism.
The latter is the regime in which all political power belongs to the financial oligarchy
which rules via the deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political institutions
including POTUS are downgraded to instruments of providing political legitimacy of the ruling
elite. Population is discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as famously
recommended Bush II to US citizens after 9/11.
This just in .Saint Obama is no longer infallible among Dems. Winds of change are blowing. Six months ago, you couldn't get
away with saying this kind of thing.
"The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Obama will receive the sum - equal to his annual pay as president - for a speech
at Cantor Fitzgerald LP's healthcare conference, though there has been no public announcement yet."
=======================================
Sheer coincidence that what Obama campaigned on and what Obama governed on appear to be influenced by rich people. Physics prevents
single payer health care .dark energy, dark matter, dark, dark, money ..
Until a strong majority of dems are ready to say what is patently obvious to anyone even mildly willing to acknowledge reality,
i.e., that policy is decided not by a majority of voters, but by a majority of dollars, than there is simply no hope for reform.
Oh please, stop quoting Andy Slavitt, the United Healthcare Ingenix algo man. That guy is
the biggest crook that made his money early on with RX discounts with his company that he and
Senator Warren's daughter, Amelia sold to United Healthcare.
He's out there trying to do his own reputation restore routine. Go back to 2009 and read
about the short paying of MDs by Ingenix, which is now Optum Insights, he was the CEO and
remember it was just around 3 years ago or so he sat there quarterly with United CEO Hemsley
at those quarterly meetings.
Look him up, wants 40k to speak and he puts the perception out there he does this for
free, not so.
I think you're missing the context. Lambert is quoting him by way of showing that the
sleazy establishment types are just fine with him. Thanks for the extra background on that
particular swamp-dweller, though.
Alex Azar is a Dartmouth grad (Gov't & Economics '88) just like Jeff Immelt (Applied
Math & Economics '78). So much damage to society from such a small department!
Since 2014, Ross has been the vice-chairman of the board of Bank of Cyprus PCL, the
largest bank in Cyprus.
He served under U.S. President Bill Clinton on the board of the U.S.-Russia Investment
Fund. Later, under New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Ross served as the Mayor's
privatization advisor.
She raise important question about Trump university
Notable quotes:
"... That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her... ..."
"... Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are both admirable. ..."
I am an Australian observer, What I see of Elizabeth Warren, she should be the next
American President, 1, she has a brain, 2, she has dignity, 3, she knows what she is dong,
(she has a clue, unlike the current one ) no one scares this woman.
Betsy deVos got raked over the coals by both Franken and Warren... deVos isn't qualified
to be a teacher's aid for a kindergarten class much less run the D. of Ed. scary!
We need more Elizabeth Warrens in America. And we need new rules in our governance. Can
you imagine if this was a real life corporate board interview. Would DeVos be hired by that
board? Be honest....... DeVos was beyond stupid here.
That was brutally enlightening. I mean, I heard from the news that she didn't have a clue
about education, but I didn't know it was this bad. America's education system desperately
needs to be improved, but I don't see that coming with her...
I am not a fan either way of DeVos, but this was nothing but a platform for Warren to fast
talk over her, and a way to slam Trump, call him a crook and fraud, and be condescending
non-stop.
Elizabeth Warren has some good ideas at times, but this was bullying and
showboating on her part and she wasted her time lecturing instead of really giving her a real
opportunity to answer a few strong questions to see where she stood on certain topics. Pity.
Has Warren been held accountable for the billions of waste and fraud committed by the
congress in the past 8 years on failed policies, laws, etc.
And by the way, how many people
in Washington, D C have had experience running a Trillion dollar bank? What a rather dumb
question since the answer is NOBODY.
"Destroys?" She basically ask her a bunch of questions she already knew the answer to just
to point out she hasn't taken out a student loan or has experience overseeing a trillion
dollar program. Then Liz proceeds to derive her own answer prior to Besty answering herself.
A cop may not have saved someones life before so by that logic the cop is not qualified to
save lives? Sure, she may not have experience with student loans but that doesn't mean she
doesn't understand compound interest, inflation and economics. Maybe these hearings would be
a better use of tax payer's money if they weren't merely a forum to broadcast the fact that
you don't like someone's political affiliations.
So having focused on being a community organizer is fine for running for president, but
somehow NOT for running a federal agency under a president? Meanwhile, when it comes to
following the spirit of regulations as opposed to regulations themselves, which (if any) were
NOT violated when a certain senator used to be a professor at Harvard and proclaimed that she
was of American Indian heritage, while such a classification "coincidentally" benefited
whomever claimed it?
Having said that, Senator Warren's zeal and interrogation skills are
both admirable. So is the way in which Betsy Devos diplomatically handles such an onslaught
of pointed questions that some say are agenda-driven.
This is democracy at work and it's
refreshing to see. Thanks Youtube and all who helped bring this about.
Senator Warren. You are a US Senator. What is your plan for insuring the United States
won't run up 10's of trillions of debt which will bankrupt our country? Senator Warren, have
you ever balanced a budget? Do you know what a balanced budget is? Senator Warren, what is
your plan for protecting US citizens from criminal illegal aliens? Do you know, Senator
Warren, we already have laws in place to protect US citizens from criminal illegal aliens?
They're called immigration laws.
"... Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations. ..."
"... The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to slaughter people who do not obey. ..."
Venezuela invasion thing is double-faceted: a trap for Trump & a bluff. if the
invasion is, then bye-bye 2020 election, mission accomplished. if no invasion on sight then
the bluff of Pompeo-Bolton-Abrams is called & the 2020 reelection assured. Venezuela in
the role of bait.
The real issue lies in the voting class which cowers in fear all day long and
seeks saviors every four years via rigged circus. Trump = Obama = CIA meddling in every
country. Presidents never change, only the perception of the morons changes.
Why does the USA care about internal Venezuelan politics? Because it cares about every
country's politics and demands every country bow down and kneel to the USA. The voters, aka
morons, support this, both liberal and right wing, and have for generations.
The morons pay their taxes to meddle in other countries and for a giant military to
slaughter people who do not obey. Freedom at the point of a gun. Nothing quite says
democracy like having the US president tell the Venezuelans how to run their country.
"... The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel ..."
"... Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy ..."
"... Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability to minimize the effects of the economic war ..."
"... So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of the West rushed to follow the decision. ..."
"... Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance. ..."
Even before the 2016 US presidential election, this blog supported that Donald Trump is
apure sample of neoliberal barbarism . Many almost laughed at this perception because Trump was being already promoted,
more or less, as the 'terminator' of the neoliberal establishment. And many people, especially in the US, tired from the economic
disasters, the growing inequality and the endless wars, were anxious to believe that this was indeed his special mission.
Right after the elections, we supported that the
US establishment
gave a brilliant performance by putting its reserve, Donald Trump, in power, against the only candidate that the same
establishment identified as a real threat: Bernie Sanders.
In 2017 , Trump bombed Syria for the first time, resembling the lies that led us to the Iraq war disaster. Despite the fact that
the US Tomahawk missile attack had zero value in operational level (the United States allegedly warned Russia and Syria, while the
targeted airport was operating normally just hours after the attack), Trump sent a clear message to the US deep state that he is
prepared to meet all its demands - and especially the escalation of the confrontation with Russia.
Indeed, a year later, Trump built a pro-war team that includes the most bloodthirsty, hawkish neocons. And then, he ordered a
second airstrike against Syria, together with his neocolonial friends.
In the middle of all this 'orgy' of pro-establishment moves, Trump offered a controversial withdrawal of US forces from Syria
and Afghanistan to save whatever was possible from his 'anti-interventionist' profile. And it was indeed a highly controversial action
with very little value, considering all these US military bases that are still fully operational in the broader Middle East and beyond.
Not to mention the various ways through which the US intervenes in the area (training proxies, equip them with heavy weapons, supporting
the Saudis and contribute to war crimes in Yemen, etc.)
And then , after this very short break, Trump returned to 'business as usual' to satisfy the neoliberal establishment with a 'glorious'
record. He achieved a 35-day government shutdown, which is the
"longest shutdown in US history"
.
Trump conducted the longest experiment on neoliberals' ultimate goal: abolishing the annoying presence of the state. And this
was just a taste of what Trump is willing to do in order to satisfy all neoliberals' wet dreams.
And now, we have the Venezuela issue. Since Hugo Chavez nationalized PDVSA, the central oil and natural gas company, the US empire
launched a fierce economic war against the country. Yet, while all previous US administrations were trying to replace legitimate
governments with their puppets as much silently as possible through slow-motion coup operations, Trump has no problem to do it in
plain sight.
And perhaps the best proof for that is a statement by one of the most warmongering figures of the neocon/neoliberal cabal, hired
by Trump . As John Bolton cynically and openly
admitted recently,
" It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and
produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela. "
Therefore, one should be very naive of course to believe that the Western imperialist gang seriously cares about the Venezuelan
people and especially the poor. Here are three basic reasons behind the open US intervention in Venezuela:
The imperialists want to grab the rich oil fields for the US big oil cartel, as well as the
great untapped
natural resources , particularly gold (mostly for the Canadian companies).
Venezuela must not become an example for other countries in the region on social-programs policy, which is mainly funded by
the oil production. The imperialists know that they must interrupt the path of Venezuela to real Socialism by force if necessary.
Neoliberalism must prevail by all means for the benefit of the big banks and corporations.
Venezuela must not turn to cooperation with rival powers like China and Russia. Such a prospect may give the country the ability
to minimize the effects of the economic war. The country may find an alternative to escape the Western sanctions in order to fund
its social programs for the benefit of the people. And, of course, the West will never accept the exploitation of the Venezuelan
resources by the Sino-Russian bloc.
So, when Trump declared the unelected Juan Guaido as the 'legitimate president' of Venezuela, all the main neoliberal powers of
the West rushed to follow the decision.
This is something we have never seen before. The 'liberal democracies' of the West - only by name - immediately, uncritically
and without hesitation jumped on the same boat with Trump towards this outrageously undemocratic action. They recognized Washington's
puppet as the legitimate president of a third country. A man that was never elected by the Venezuelan people and has very low popularity
in the country. Even worse, the EU parliament
approved this action
, killing any last remnants of democracy in the Union.
Yet, it seems that the US is finding increasingly difficult to force many countries to align with its agenda. Even some European
countries took some distance from the attempted constitutional coup, with Italy even
trying to
veto EU's decision to recognize Guaido.
Donald Trump is the personification of an authoritarian system that increasingly unveils its true nature. The US empire makes
the Venezuelan economy 'scream hard', as it did in Chile in 1973. The country then turned into the first laboratory of neoliberalism
with the help of the Chicago Boys and a brutal dictatorship. So, as the big fraud is clear now, neoliberalism is losing ground and
ideological influence over countries and societies, after decades of complete dominance.
This unprecedented action by the Western neoliberal powers to recognize Guaido is a serious sign that neoliberalism returns to
its roots and slips towards fascism. It appears now that this is the only way to maintain some level of power.
Meanwhile, the modern Republican Party is all about cutting taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor and the middle class.
And Trump, despite his campaign posturing, has turned out to be no different.
Hence the failure of our political system to serve socially conservative/racist voters who also want to tax the rich and preserve
Social Security. Democrats won't ratify their racism; Republicans, who have no such compunctions, will -- remember, the party establishment
solidly backed Roy Moore's Senate bid -- but won't protect the programs they depend on.
Paul Krugman is a baby boomer, pissant globalizer bastard, but he has made reasonable comments about immigration in the past.
Paul Krugman is a high IQ moron who has occasional bouts of clarity on the anti-worker aspects of mass legal immigration and illegal
immigration. Krugman had it right in 2006 when he said that mass immigration lowers wages for workers in the USA.
Krugman in NY Times 2006:
First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least
roughly speaking, paid their "marginal product": an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services
he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn't anything left over to increase the income of the people
already here.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That's just
supply and demand: we're talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production,
so it's inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn
that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
However, Krugman is also a relentless partisan hack. So his expert analysis always ends up supporting the current Democrat
talking points -- whatever they may be.
Here, Krugman is disparaging any move to the center as the DNC wants to keep the Dems unified on the left and keep Schultz
(or anyone like him) out of the race. Of course, the real reason Schultz has massively negative polling is because the Democrat
establishment has been savaging him for precisely this reason.
Likewise, to Krugman a "Racist" politician is anyone who holds the same immigration position as Krugman did in 2006, which
is now anathema to the Dem's new Open Borders electoral strategy.
It's only a matter of time until Krugman starts talking up Kamala Harris as the best thing that could happen for the economy.
Bottom line: Krugman – like any economist who was gifted with a fake Nobel Prize in Economics by his wealthy patrons (the Nobel
Prize in Economics does not exist – check out wikipedia!) – is a whore whose only function is to protect the left flank of our
corrupt and rapacious elite.
He's not a moron, and he's certainly not a liberal. His job – which pays very well mind you – is to pretend to be a sorta-kinda
Keynesian New Dealer, but in reality, anything that the rich wants, he will end up defending. And even if he sorta kinda claims
to be opposing something that the rich want which will impoverish the rest of us, when it comes to the bottom line, he will ruthlessly
attack any opposition to these policies.
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. ..."
"... It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. ..."
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did
Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked
the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the
constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela,
perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those
tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by
all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish
friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate
"government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let
them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All
the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA
crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all
of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long
before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think
Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St,
Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all
evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists.
I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold
in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't
create Israel until they discovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it.
Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here
are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can
claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I
think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want.
Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral,
unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing
profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced
form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us,
taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no
taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody
dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it,
again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back
to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the
people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors
running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system
of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about.
Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about,
follow the money. Just muh opinion
The opposition hates me. I can do no right. The
Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong. There are not enough independent thinkers
to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every minute,
meaningless issue. I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my
buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens
after I leave White House.
This article from 2017 looks like it was written yesterday. Trump betrayal of his elctorate on multiple levels, essentially on all
key poin of his election program mkes him "Republican Obama".
What is interesting about Trump foreign policy is his version of neoliberal "gangster capitalism" on foreign arena:
might is right principle applied like universal opener. Previous administrations tried to put a lipstick on the pig. Trump
does not even bother.
In terms of foreign policy, and even during the transition before Trump's inauguration, there were other, more disturbing signs
of where Trump would be heading soon. When Fidel Castro died on November 25, 2016,
Trump seemed jubilant as if he had somehow been vindicated, and took the opportunity to slander Castro as a "brutal dictator" who
"oppressed his own people" and turned Cuba into a "totalitarian island".
Notable quotes:
"... However, when he delivered his inaugural address on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the government's back on a long-standing policy of cultural imperialism , stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first". ..."
"... Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office -- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat. ..."
"... The entire conflict with Russia that has developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. ..."
"... Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from wars for regime change, Trump sold out again. "I love WikiLeaks -- " -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding. ..."
"... AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States? ..."
"... AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing? ..."
"... AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to arrest Julian Assange? ..."
"... While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US, witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to them. ..."
"... Since NAFTA was implemented, migration from Mexico to the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately drove them away from agriculture ..."
"... As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact, per capita GDP is nearly a flat line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures that have been implemented, the US leads the world . ..."
"... To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only when the US reaps the greater share of benefits. ..."
"... As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son -- then what an abysmally poor choice he is ..."
"... On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism, which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced. ..."
"... As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism . Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics. ..."
"... As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition. ..."
Trump could have kept quiet, and lost nothing. Instead what he was attacking -- and the irony was missed on his fervently right
wing supporters -- was someone who was a leader in the anti-globalist movement, from long before it was ever called that. Fidel Castro
was a radical pioneer of independence, self-reliance, and self-determination.
Castro turned Cuba from an American-owned sugar plantation and brothel, a lurid backwater in the Caribbean, into a serious international
actor opposed to globalizing capitalism. There was no sign of any acknowledgment of this by Trump, who instead chose to parrot the
same people who would vilify him using similar terms (evil, authoritarian, etc.). Of course, Trump respects only corporate executives
and billionaires, not what he would see as some rag-tag Third World revolutionary. Here Trump's supporters generally failed, using
Castro's death as an opportunity for tribal partisanship, another opportunity to attack "weak liberals" like Obama who made minor
overtures to Cuba (too little, too late).
Their distrust of "the establishment" was nowhere to be found this time: their ignorance of Cuba and their resort to stock clichés
and slogans had all been furnished to them by the same establishment they otherwise claimed to oppose.
Just to be clear, the above is not meant to indicate any reversal on Trump's part regarding Cuba. He has been consistently anti-communist,
and fairly consistent in his denunciations of Fidel Castro. What is significant is that -- far from overcoming the left-right divide
-- Trump shores up the barriers, even at the cost of denouncing others who have a proven track record of fighting against neoliberal
globalization and US interventionism. In these regards, Trump has no track record. Even among his rivals in the Republican primaries,
senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul had more of an anti-interventionist track record.
However, when he delivered his inaugural address
on January 20, 2017, Trump appeared to reaffirm his campaign themes of anti-interventionism. In particular he seemed to turn the
government's back on a long-standing policy of
cultural imperialism
, stating: "We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone". In addition he said his government would "seek friendship and goodwill
with the nations of the world," and he understood the importance of national sovereignty when he added, "it is the right of all nations
to put their own interests first".
Russia
Yet when it came to Russia, Trump could have instantly removed sanctions that were imposed by Obama in his last weeks in office
-- an irresponsible and dangerous act by Obama, where foreign policy was used as a partisan tool in the service of shoring up a crummy
conspiracy theory about "Russian hacking" in order to deny the Democrats any culpability in their much deserved defeat.
Instead, Trump continued the sanctions, as if out of meek deference to Obama's policy, one founded on lies and antagonism
toward Trump himself. Rather than repair the foul attempt to sabotage the US-Russian relationship in preparation for his presidency,
Trump simply abided and thus became an accomplice. To be clear,
Trump has done precisely nothing
to dampen the near mass hysteria that has been manufactured in the US about alleged -- indeed imaginary -- "Russian intervention".
His comments, both during the electoral campaign and even early into his presidency, about wanting good relations with Russia,
have been replaced by Trump's admissions that US relations with Russia are at a low point (Putin agreed: "I would say the level of
trust [between Russia and the US] is at a workable level, especially in the military dimension, but it hasn't improved. On the contrary,
it has degraded " and his spokesman called
the relations " deplorable ".)
Rather than use the power of his office to calm fears, to build better ties with Russia, and to make meeting with Vladimir Putin
a top priority, Trump has again done nothing , except escalating tensions. The entire conflict with Russia that has
developed in recent years, on the US side, was totally unnecessary, illogical, and quite preventable. Russia had actively facilitated
the US' war in Afghanistan for over a decade, and was a consistent collaborator on numerous levels. It is up to thinking American
officials to honestly explain what motivated them to tilt relations with Russia, because it is certainly not Russia's doing. The
only explanation that makes any sense is that the US leadership grew concerned that Russia was no longer teetering on the edge of
total socio-economic breakdown, as it was under the neoliberal Boris Yeltsin, but has instead resurfaced as a major actor in international
affairs, and one that champions anti-neoliberal objectives of enhanced state sovereignty and self-determination.
WikiLeaks
Just two weeks after violating his promise to end the US role as the world's policeman and his vow to extricate the US from
wars for regime change, Trump sold out again.
"I love WikiLeaks --
" -- this is what Trump exclaimed in a speech on October 10, 2016. Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks is thus truly astounding.
After finding so much use for WikiLeaks' publication of the Podesta emails, which became incorporated into his campaign speeches,
and which fuelled the writing and speaking of journalists and bloggers sympathetic to Trump -- he was now effectively declaring WikiLeaks
to be both an enemy and a likely target of US government action, in even more blunt terms than we heard during the past eight years
under Obama. This is not mere continuity with the past, but a dramatic escalation. Rather than praise Julian Assange for his work,
call for an end to the illegal impediments to his seeking asylum, swear off any US calls for extraditing and prosecuting Assange,
and perhaps meeting with him in person, Trump has done all of the opposite. Instead we learn that Trump's administration may
file arrest charges against Assange
. Mike Pompeo ,
chosen by Trump to head the CIA, who had himself
cited WikiLeaks as a reliable source of proof about how the Democratic National Committee had rigged its campaign, now declared
WikiLeaks to be a "
non-state hostile intelligence service ," along with vicious personal slander against Assange.
Trump's about-face on WikiLeaks was one that he defended in terms that were not just a deceptive rewriting of history, but one
that was also fearful -- "I don't support or unsupport" WikiLeaks, was what Trump was now saying in his dash for the nearest exit.
The backtracking is so obvious in this
interview
Trump gave to the AP , that his shoes must have left skid marks on the floor:
AP: If I could fit a couple of more topics. Jeff Sessions, your attorney general, is taking a tougher line suddenly on
Julian Assange, saying that arresting him is a priority. You were supportive of what WikiLeaks was doing during the campaign with
the release of the Clinton emails. Do you think that arresting Assange is a priority for the United States?
TRUMP: When Wikileaks came out never heard of Wikileaks, never heard of it. When Wikileaks came out, all I was just saying
is, "Well, look at all this information here, this is pretty good stuff." You know, they tried to hack the Republican, the RNC,
but we had good defenses. They didn't have defenses, which is pretty bad management. But we had good defenses, they tried to hack
both of them. They weren't able to get through to Republicans. No, I found it very interesting when I read this stuff and I said,
"Wow." It was just a figure of speech. I said, "Well, look at this. It's good reading."
AP: But that didn't mean that you supported what Assange is doing?
TRUMP: No, I don't support or unsupport. It was just information .
AP: Can I just ask you, though -- do you believe it is a priority for the United States, or it should be a priority, to
arrest Julian Assange?
TRUMP: I am not involved in that decision, but if Jeff Sessions wants to do it, it's OK with me. I didn't know about that decision,
but if they want to do it, it's OK with me.
First, Trump invents the fictitious claim that WikiLeaks was responsible for hacking the DNC, and that WikiLeaks also tried to
hack the Republicans. Second, he pretends to be an innocent bystander, a spectator, in his own administration -- whatever others
decide, is "OK" with him, not that he knows about their decisions, but it's all up to others. He has no power, all of a sudden.
Again, what Trump is displaying in this episode is his ultimate attachment to his class, with all of its anxieties and its contempt
for rebellious, marginal upstarts. Trump shuns any sort of "loyalty" to WikiLeaks (not that they ever had a working relationship)
or any form of gratitude, because then that would imply a debt and therefore a transfer of value -- whereas Trump's core ethics are
those of expedience and greed (he admits that much).
This move has come with a cost , with members of Trump's support base openly denouncing the betrayal. 6
NAFTA
On NAFTA , Trump claims he has not changed his position -- yet, from openly denouncing the free trade agreement and promising
to terminate it, he now vows only to seek modifications and amendments, which means supporting NAFTA. He appeared to be
awfully quick to obey the diplomatic pressure of Canada's Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, and Mexico's President, Enrique Peńa
Nieto. Trump's entire position on NAFTA now comes into question.
While there is no denying the extensive data about the severe impacts of NAFTA on select states and industries in the US,
witnessed by the closure of tens of thousands of factories and the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs, there is little support
for the claim that Canada and Mexico, as wholes, have instead fared well and that the US as a whole has been the loser thanks to
them.
This really deserves to be treated at length, separately from this article. However, for now, let's keep in mind that when
Trump complains about Canadian softwood lumber and dairy exports to the US, his argument about NAFTA is without merit. Neither commodity
is part of the NAFTA agreement.
Moreover, where dairy is concerned, the problem is US overproduction.
Wisconsin alone has more
dairy cows than all of Canada . There is a net surplus , in the US' favour, with respect to US dairy exports to Canada.
Overall,
the US has a net surplus in the trade in
goods and services with Canada. Regarding Mexico, the irony of Trump's denunciations of imaginary Mexican victories is that he
weakens his own criticisms of immigration.
Since NAFTA was implemented,
migration from Mexico to
the US skyrocketed dramatically. US agricultural industries sent millions of Mexican farmers into food poverty, and ultimately
drove them away from agriculture.
As for per capita GDP, so treasured by economists, NAFTA had no positive impact on Mexico -- in fact,
per capita GDP is nearly a flat
line for the entire period since 1994. Finally, Trump does not mention that in terms of the number of actual protectionist measures
that have been implemented, the
US leads the world .
To put Trump's position on NAFTA in bold relief, it is not that he is decidedly against free trade. In fact, he often claims
he supports free trade, as long as it is "fair". However, his notion of fairness is very lopsided -- a trade agreement is fair only
when the US reaps the greater share of benefits.
His arguments with respect to Canada are akin to those of a looter or raider. He wants to block lumber imports from Canada, at
the same time as he wants to break the Canadian dairy market wide open to absorb US excess production. That approach is at the core
of what defined the US as a "new empire" in the 1800s. In addition, while Trump was quick to tear up the TPP, he has said nothing
about TISA and TTIP.
Mexico
Trump's argument with Mexico is also disturbing for what it implies. It would seem that any
evidence of production
in Mexico causes Trump concern. Mexico should not only keep its people -- however many are displaced by US imports -- but it should
also be as dependent as possible on the US for everything except oil. Since Trump has consistently declared his antagonism to OPEC,
ideally Mexico's oil would be sold for a few dollars per barrel.
China
Trump's turn on China almost provoked laughter from his many domestic critics. Absurdly, what figures prominently in most renditions
of the story of Trump's change on China (including his own), is a big piece of chocolate cake. The missile strike on Syria was, according
to Wilbur Ross, the "
after-dinner entertainment ". Here, Trump's loud condemnations of China on trade issues were suddenly quelled -- and it is not
because chocolate has magical properties. Instead it seems Trump has been willing to settle on
selling out citizens' interests , and
particularly those who voted for him, in return for China's assistance on North Korea. Let's be clear: countering and dominating
North Korea is an established favourite among neoconservatives. Trump's priority here is fully "neocon," and the submergence of trade
issues in favour of militaristic preferences is the one case where neoconservatives might be distinguished from the otherwise identical
neoliberals.
North Korea
Where North Korea is concerned, Trump chose to manufacture a "
crisis ". North Korea has actually done nothing
to warrant a sudden outbreak of panic over it being supposedly aggressive and threatening. North Korea is no more aggressive than
any person defending their survival can be called belligerent. The constant series of US military exercises in South Korea, or near
North Korean waters, is instead a deliberate provocation to a state whose existence the US nearly extinguished. Even last year the
US Air Force publicly boasted of having
"nearly destroyed" North Korea -- language one would have expected from the Luftwaffe in WWII. The US continues to maintain roughly
60,000 troops on the border between North and South Korea, and continues to refuse to formally declare an end to the Korean War and
sign a peace treaty
. Trump then announced he was sending an "armada" to the Korean peninsula, and boasted of how "very powerful" it was. This was in
addition to the US deploying the THAAD missile system in South Korea. Several of his messages in Twitter were written using highly
provocative and threatening language. When asked if he would start a war, Trump glibly replied: "
I don't know. I mean, we'll see ". On another occasion Trump stated, "There is a chance that we could end up having a
major, major conflict with North
Korea. Absolutely". When the world's leading military superpower declares its intention to destroy you, then there is nothing you
can do in your defense which anyone could justly label as "over the top". Otherwise, once again Trump posed as a parental figure,
the world's chief babysitter -- picture Trump, surrounded by children taking part in the "Easter egg roll" at the White House, being
asked about North Korea and responding "they gotta behave". Trump would presume to teach manners to North Korea, using the only tools
of instruction that seem to be the first and last resort of US foreign policy (and the "defense" industry): bombs.
Syria
Attacking Syria , on purportedly humanitarian grounds, is for many (including vocal supporters) one of the most glaring contradictions
of Trump's campaign statements about not embroiling the US in failed wars of regime change and world policing. During the campaign,
he was in favour of Russia's collaboration with Syria in the fight against ISIS. For years he had condemned Obama for involving the
US in Syria, and consistently opposed military intervention there. All that was consigned to the archive of positions Trump declared
to now be worthless. That there had been a change in Trump's position is not a matter of dispute --
Trump made the point himself :
"I like to think of myself as a very flexible person. I don't have to have one specific way, and if the world changes, I go
the same way, I don't change. Well, I do change and I am flexible, and I'm proud of that flexibility. And I will tell you, that
attack on children yesterday had a big impact on me -- big impact. That was a horrible, horrible thing. And I've been watching
it and seeing it, and it doesn't get any worse than that. And I have that flexibility, and it's very, very possible -- and I will
tell you, it's already happened that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much. And if you look back over the last
few weeks, there were other attacks using gas. You're now talking about a whole different level".
Bending to the will of the prevailing Cold War and neo-McCarthyist atmosphere in the US, rife with anti-Russian conspiracy theories,
Trump found an easy opportunity to score points with the hostile media, ever so mindful as he is about approval ratings, polls, and
media coverage. Some explain Trump's reversals as arising from his
pursuit
of
public adulation -- and while the media play the key role in purveying celebrity status, they are also a stiff bastion of imperialist
culture. Given his many years as a the host of a popular TV show, and as the owner of the Miss Universe Pageant, there is some logical
merit to the argument. But I think even more is at work, as explained in paragraphs above.
According to Eric Trump it was at the urging of Ivanka that Donald Trump decided to strike a humanitarian-militarist pose. He
would play the part of the Victorian parent, only he would use missiles to teach unruly children lessons about violence. Using language
typically used against him by the mainstream media, Trump now felt entitled to pontificate that Assad is "evil," an "
animal ," who would
have
to go . When did he supposedly come to this realization? Did Assad become evil at the same time Trump was inaugurated? Why would
Trump have kept so silent about "evil" on the campaign trail? Trump of course is wrong: it's not that the world changed and he changed
with it; rather, he invented a new fiction to suit his masked intentions. Trump's supposed opponents and critics, like the Soros-funded
organizer of the women's march Linda Sarsour, showed her
approval of even more drastic
action by endorsing messages by what sounded like a stern school mistress who thought that 59 cruise missiles were just a mere "slap
on the wrist". Virtually every neocon who is publicly active applauded Trump, as did most senior Democrats. The loudest
opposition
, however, came from Trump's
own base , with a number of articles
featuring criticism from Trump's
supporters , and one conservative publication calling him outright a "
weakling
and a political ingrate ".
Members of the Trump administration have played various word games with the public on intervention in Syria. From unnamed officials
saying the missile strike was a "one off," to named officials
promising more if there
were any other suspected chemical attacks (or use of barrel bombs -- and this while the US dropped the biggest non-nuclear bomb in
existence on Afghanistan); some said that
regime change was not the goal,
and then others made it clear that was the ultimate
goal ; and then Trump saying, "Our policy is the same, it hasn't changed.
We're not going into Syria " -- even
though
Trump himself greatly increased the number of US troops he deployed to Syria , illegally, in an escalation of the least
protested invasion in recent history. Now we should know enough not to count this as mere ambiguity, but as deliberate obfuscation
that offers momentary (thinly veiled) cover for a
renewal of neocon policy .
We can draw an outline of Trump's liberal imperialism when it comes to Syria, which is likely to be applied elsewhere. First,
Trump's interventionist policy regarding Syria is one that continues to treat that country as if it were terra nullius ,
a mere playground for superpower politics. Second, Trump is clearly continuing with the
neoconservative agenda and its hit list of
states to be terminated by US military action, as famously confirmed by Gen. Wesley Clark. Even Trump's strategy for justifying the
attack on Syria echoed the two prior Bush presidential administrations -- selling war with the infamous "incubator babies" myth and
the myth of "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). In many ways, Trump's presidency is thus shaping up to be either the seventh term
of the George H.W. Bush regime, or the fifth straight term of the George W. Bush regime. Third, Trump is taking ownership of an extremely
dangerous conflict, with costs that could surpass anything witnessed by the war on Iraq (which also continues). Fourth, by highlighting
the importance of photographs in allegedly changing his mind, Trump has placed a high market value on propaganda featuring dead babies.
His actions in Syria will now create an effective demand for the pornographic trade in pictures of atrocities. These are matters
of great importance to the transnational capitalist class, which demands full global penetrability, diminished state power (unless
in the service of this class' goals), a uniformity of expectations and conformity in behaviour, and an emphasis on individual civil
liberties which are the basis for defending private property and consumerism.
Venezuela
It is very disturbing to see how Venezuela is being framed as ripe for US intervention, in ways that distinctly echo the lead
up to the US war on Libya. Just as disturbing is that Trump's Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, has a clear conflict of interest
regarding Venezuela, from his recent role as CEO of
Exxon
and its conflict with the government of Venezuela over its nationalization of oil. Tillerson is, by any definition, a clear-cut
member of the transnational capitalist class. The Twitter account of the
State
Department has a battery of messages sternly lecturing Venezuela about the treatment of protesters, while also pontificating
on the Venezuelan Constitution as if the US State Department had become a global supreme court. What is impressive is the seamless
continuity in the nature of the messages on Venezuela from that account, as if no change of government happened between Obama's time
and Trump's. Nikki Haley, Trump's neocon ambassador to the UN, issued
a statement that read like it had been written by her predecessors, Samantha Power and Susan Rice, a statement which in itself
is an unacceptable intervention in Venezuelan internal affairs. For Trump's part, from just days
before the election, to a couple of weeks
after his inauguration, he has sent explicit
messages of support for anti-government
forces in Venezuela. In February, Trump
imposed sanctions on Venezuela's
Vice President. After Syria and North Korea, Venezuela is seeming the likely focus of US interventionism under Trump.
NATO
Rounding out the picture, at least for now (this was just the first hundred days of Trump's presidency), was Trump's outstanding
reversal on NATO -- in fact, once again he stated the reversal himself, and without explanation either: "
I said it was obsolete. It's no longer obsolete ". This came just days after the US missile strike against Syria, and just as
Ivanka Trump was about to represent
his government at a meeting of globalist women, the
W20 . NATO has served as
the transnational military alliance at the service of the transnational capitalist class, and particularly the military and political
members of the TCC. 7
Saving Neoliberalism?
Has Trump saved neoliberal capitalism from its ongoing demise? Has he sustained popular faith in liberal political ideals? Are
we still in the dying days of liberalism
? If there had been a centrally coordinated plan to plant an operative among the ranks of populist conservatives and independents,
to channel their support for nationalism into support for the persona of the plant, and to then have that plant steer a course straight
back to shoring up neoliberal globalism -- then we might have had a wonderful story of a masterful conspiracy, the biggest heist
in the history of elections anywhere. A truly "rigged system" could be expected to behave that way. Was Trump designated to take
the fall in a rigged game, only his huge ego got in the way when he realized he could realistically win the election and he decided
to really tilt hard against his partner, Hillary Clinton? It could be the basis for a novel, or a Hollywood political comedy. I have
no way of knowing if it could be true.
Framed within the terms of what we do know, there was relief by the ousted group of political elites and the liberal globalist
media at the sight of Trump's reversals, and a sense that
their vision had been vindicated.
However, if they are hoping that the likes of Trump will serve as a reliable flag bearer, then theirs is a misguided wishful thinking.
If someone so demonized and ridiculed, tarnished as an evil thug and racist fascist, the subject of mass demonstrations in the US
and abroad, is the latest champion of (neo)liberalism, then we are certainly witnessing its dying days.
Is Trump Beneficial for Anti-Imperialism?
Once one is informed enough and thus prepared to understand that anti-imperialism is not the exclusive preserve of the left (a
left which anyway has mostly shunned it over the last two decades), that it
did not originate with the
left , and that it has a long and distinguished history
in the US itself , then we can move
toward some interesting realizations. The facts, borne out by surveys and my own online immersion among pro-Trump social media users,
is that one of the
significantreasons
why Trump won is due to the growth in popularity of basic anti-imperialist principles (even if not recognized under that name): for
example, no more world policing, no transnational militarization, no more interventions abroad, no more regime change, no war, and
no globalism. Nationalists in Europe, as in Russia, have also pushed forward a basic anti-imperialist vision. Whereas in Latin America
anti-imperialism is largely still leftist, in Europe and North America the left-right divide has become blurred, but the crucial
thing is that at least now we can speak of anti-imperialism gaining strength in these three major continents. Resistance against
globalization has been the primary objective, along with strengthening national sovereignty, protecting local cultural identity,
and opposing free trade and transnational capital. Unfortunately, some anti-imperialist writers (on the left in fact) have tended
to restrict their field of vision to military matters primarily, while almost completely neglecting the economic and cultural, and
especially domestic dimensions of imperialism. (I am grossly generalizing of course, but I think it is largely accurate.) Where structures
such as NAFTA are concerned, many of these same leftist anti-imperialists, few as they are, have had virtually nothing to say. It
could be that they have yet to fully recognize that the transnational capitalist class has, gradually over the last seven decades,
essentially purchased the power of US imperialism. Therefore the TCC's imperialism includes NAFTA, just as it includes open borders,
neoliberal identity politics, and drone strikes. They are all different parts of the same whole.
As argued in the previous section, if Trump is to be the newfound champion of this imperialism -- empire's prodigal son --
then what an abysmally poor choice he is. 8
On the one hand, he helped to unleash US anti-interventionism (usually called "isolationism" not to call it anti-imperialism,
which would then admit to imperialism which is still denied by most of the dominant elites). On the other hand, in trying to now
contain such popular sentiment, he loses credibility -- after having lost credibility with the groups his campaign displaced.
In addition to that, given that his candidacy aggravated internal divisions in the US, which have not subsided with his assumption
of office, these domestic social and cultural conflicts cause a serious deficit of legitimacy, a loss of political capital. A declining
economy will also deprive him of capital in the strict sense. Moreover, given the kind of persona the media have crafted, the daily
caricaturing of Trump will significantly spur anti-Americanism around the world. If suddenly even Canadian academics are talking
about boycotting the US, then the worm has truly turned. Trump can only rely on "hard power" (military violence), because "soft power"
is almost out of the question now that Trump has been constructed as a barbarian. Incompetent and/or undermined governance will also
render Trump a deficient upholder of the status quo. The fact that nationalist movements around the world are not centrally coordinated,
and their fortunes are not pinned to those of Trump, establishes a well-defined limit to his influence. Trump's antagonism toward
various countries -- as wholes -- has already helped to stir up a deep sediment of anti-Americanism. If Americanism is at the heart
of Trump's nationalist globalism, then it is doing all the things that are needed to induce a major heart attack.
As for Trump's domestic opposition, what should be most pertinent are issues of conflict of interest and nepotism
. Here members of Trump's base are more on target yet again, when they reject the presence of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
in the White House ("we didn't elect Ivanka or Jared"), than are those distracted by identity politics.
As Trump leverages the presidency to upgrade the Trump family to the transnational capitalist class, and reinforces the power
of US imperialism which that class has purchased, conflict of interest and nepotism will be the main political signposts of the transformation
of the Trump presidency, but they could also be the targets for a refined strategy of opposition.
Half of Americans don't bother voting for president. Why is the American media full only of people who insist that the country
is divided in half between Democrat and Republican supporters? Where are the people of influence who think it's a problem and
reflects poorly on the country that half of eligible voters don't see a reason to participate, and that it's worth changing things
in order to get more people to change their minds about that?
Both parties are content with being unpopular, but with political mechanisms ensuring they stay in power anyway. The Democrats
aren't concerned with being popular. They're content with being a token opposition party that every once in a while gets a few
token years with power they don't put to any good anyway. It pays more, I guess.
It still looks like if Americans want to live in a progressive country, they'll have to move to one. But as it is clear that the
neoliberalism of establishment Democrats has little or nothing to offer the poor and working class, or to non-wealthy millennials,
the times they are a-changing.
These corporate-Dem candidates are not being forced to sell out to win elections. Quite the
opposite in fact. They are risking losing their elections for the sake of selling out.
Surely, many will comment that Democrats have no choice but to take the money in order to be
competitive. I have one truism for such folks to ponder: Why would you trust your allegiance
to those who don't care if you win?
Basic logic: rich people win the general election either way, so long as the
primary-winning Democrat is in their pocket (the GOP is always on their side). So this
monetary affection is certainly more about fixing an no-lose general than it is about ousting
Trump, or any Republican.
Numerous MSM articles appear about Trump's standing up to the Generals: Mattis, Kelly, Dunford, etc. Yet Bolton feels free to
conspire against the President's agenda? The narrative that Trump is fighting for his campaign promises, but allows Bolton and
Pompeo to scheme against him does not make any sense.
A more realistic take is that rump is a faux populist. He is the Republican Obama - pretending to be a populist
peacemaker while working for the establishment. The "populist hero" is a gimmick that reinforces people's belief in USA democracy
and the righteousness of USA actions. The Trump/Deep-State conflict is a propaganda psy-op.
The major inconsistency here is why the Deep State is hell bent of deposing him. Is The Trump/Deep-State conflict
is a propaganda psy-op? I do no not think so.
Trump is certainly a 'faux populist' as all right wing populists are: promises to the people while promoting the interests of
the 1%. But there is a genuine struggle going on within the ruling class due to the crisis of neoliberal governance. The world is
a complex place and Washington's influence is declining. No surprise that parts of the US elite that got used to "full spectrum
dominance" are panicking. And it is all real.
Notable quotes:
"... "The president's statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing his policies or pursuing their own agendas." ..."
"... Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's decision to reduce US involvement in Syria suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media? ..."
The Washington Post article that b links to ("never signed off") has the headline " 'They
can do what they want' Trump's Iran comments defy his top aids"
The "They" in the quote in the headline is a reference to Iran in Syria. "President Trump
stuck a dagger in a major initiative advanced by his foreign policy team:
Iran's leaders, the president said, "can do what they want" in Syria.
With a stray remark, Trump snuffed out a plan from his national security adviser, John
Bolton, who this fall vowed that the United States would not leave Syria
"as long as Iranian troops are outside Iranian borders." Pompeo has of course also obsessed
over Iran.
Now the next paragraph in the WP piece is I think quite remarkable: "The president's
statement offered the latest illustration of the dramatic gyrations that have characterized
his foreign policy and fueled questions about whether his senior advisers are implementing
his policies or pursuing their own agendas."
Here we have the question asked, in effect: Are Trump's senior people going rogue? Does
the master of spin Washington Post, by putting the question in a manner sympathetic to Trump
and unsympathetic to Bolton and Pompeo, and by extension the hordes denouncing Trump's
decision to reduce US involvement in Syria
suggest a new orientation in the Mockingbird media?
Also note that acting Defense Sec Patrick Shanahan, who was injected immediately into his
position when Trump gave Mattis the boot, is becoming part of the strategic scene.
From the NYT: "He is the brightest and smartest guy I worked with at Boeing," said Carolyn
Corvi, a former executive at the company. "He has the ability to see over the horizon and
{implement needed change]."
"Ana Mari Cauce, the president of University of Washington, worked with Mr. Shanahan ....
She said his outsider perspective was helpful in questioning old practices,
forcing people to look at problems in different ways."
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
"... According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our institutions." ..."
A central theme of the hysteria over alleged "Russian meddling" in US politics is the
sinister effort supposedly being mounted by Vladimir Putin "to undermine and manipulate our
democracy" (in the words of Democratic Senator Mark Warner).
According to the narrative fabricated by the intelligence agencies and promoted by the
Democratic Party and the corporate media over the past year and a half, Putin and his minions
hacked the Democrats and stirred up social divisions and popular grievances to secure the
election for Donald Trump, and they have been working ever since to destroy "our
institutions."
Their chosen field of battle is the internet, with Russian trolls and bots infecting the
body politic by taking advantage of lax policing of social media by the giant tech companies
such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
To defend democracy, the argument goes, these companies, working with the state, must
silence oppositional viewpoints -- above all left-wing, anti-war and socialist viewpoints --
which are labeled "fake news," and banish them from the internet. Nothing is said of the fact
that this supposed defense of democracy is a violation of the basic canons of genuine
democracy, guaranteed in the First Amendment to the US Constitution: freedom of speech and
freedom of the press.
But what is this much vaunted "American democracy?" Let's take a closer look.
The
two-party monopoly
In a vast and complex country with a population of 328 million people, consisting of many
different nationalities, native tongues, religions and other demographics, spanning six time
zones and thousands of miles, two political parties totally dominate the political
system.
The ruling corporate-financial oligarchy controls both parties and maintains its rule by
alternating control of the political institutions -- the White House, Congress, state houses,
etc. -- between them. The general population, consisting overwhelmingly of working people, is
given the opportunity every two or four years to go to the polls and vote for one or the
other of these capitalist parties. This is what is called "democracy."
The monopoly of the two big business parties is further entrenched by the absence of
proportional representation, which it makes it impossible for third parties or independent
candidates to obtain significant representation in Congress.
The role of corporate
money
The entire political process -- the selection of candidates, elections, the formulation of
domestic and foreign policies -- is dominated by corporate money. No one can seriously bid
for high office unless he or she has the backing of sponsors from the ranks of the richest 1
percent -- or 0.01 percent -- of the population. The buying of elections and politicians is
brazen and shameless.
Last month's midterm elections set a record for campaign spending in a non-presidential
year -- $5.2 billion -- a 35 percent increase over 2014 and triple the amount spent 20 years
ago, in 1998. The bulk of this flood of cash came from corporations and multi-millionaire
donors.
In the vast majority of contests, the winner was determined by the size of his or her
campaign war chest. Eighty-nine percent of House races and 84 percent of Senate races were
won by the biggest spender.
Democratic candidates had a huge spending advantage over their Republican opponents,
exposing the fraud of their attempt to posture as a party of the people. The securities and
investment industry -- Wall Street -- favored Democrats over Republicans by a margin of 52
percent to 46 percent.
Elections are anything but a forum to openly and honestly discuss and debate the great
issues facing the voters. The real issues -- the preparation for new wars, deeper austerity
and further attacks on democratic rights -- are concealed behind a miasma of attack ads and
mudslinging. The research firm PQ Media estimates that total political ad spending will reach
$6.75 billion this year. In last month's elections, the number of congressional and
gubernatorial ads rose 59 percent over the previous, 2014, midterm.
The setting of policy and passage of legislation is helped along by corporate bribes,
euphemistically termed lobbying. In 2017 alone, corporations spent $3 billion to lobby the
government.
Ballot access restrictions
A welter of arcane, arbitrary and anti-democratic requirements for gaining ballot status,
which vary from state to state, block third parties from challenging the domination of the
Democrats and Republicans. These include filing fees and nominating petition signature
requirements in the tens of thousands in many states. Democratic officials routinely
challenge the petitions of socialist and left-wing candidates who are likely to find support
among young people and workers.
Media blackout of third party candidates
The corporate media systematically blacks out the campaigns of third party and independent
candidates, especially left-wing and socialist candidates. The exception is candidates who
are either themselves rich or who have the backing of wealthy patrons.
Third party candidates are generally excluded from nationally televised candidates'
debates.
In last month's election, the Socialist Equality Party candidate for Congress in
Michigan's 12th Congressional District, Niles Niemuth, won broad support among workers, young
people and students for his socialist program, but received virtually no press
coverage.
Voting restrictions
Since the stolen election of 2000, when the Supreme Court shut down the counting of votes
in Florida in order to hand the White House to the loser of the popular vote, George W. Bush,
with virtually no opposition from the Democrats or the media, attacks on the right of workers
and poor people to vote have mounted.
Thirty-three states have implemented voter identification laws, which, studies show, bar
up to 6 percent of the population from voting. States have cut back early voting and absentee
voting and shut down voting precincts in working class neighborhoods. A number of states
impose a lifetime ban on voting by felons, even after they have done their time. In 2013, the
Supreme Court gutted the enforcement mechanism of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, with no real
opposition from the Democrats. The United States is one of the few countries that hold
elections on a work day, making it more difficult for workers to cast a
ballot.
Government of, by and for the rich
The two corporate parties have overseen a social counterrevolution, resulting in a
staggering growth of social inequality. In tandem with this process, the oligarchic structure
of society has increasingly found open expression in the political forms of rule. Alongside
the erection of the infrastructure of a police state -- mass surveillance, indefinite
detention, the militarization of the police, Gestapo raids on workplaces and attacks on
immigrants, the ascendancy of the military in political affairs, internet censorship -- the
personnel of government have increasingly been recruited from the rich and the
super-rich.
More than half of the members of Congress are millionaires, as compared to just 1 percent
of the American population. All the presidents for the past three decades -- George H. W,
Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama -- have either been multi-millionaires going
in or have cashed in on their presidencies to become multi-millionaires afterward. In the
person of the multi-billionaire real estate speculator and con man Donald Trump, the
financial oligarchy has directly taken occupancy of the White House.
In The State and Revolution , Vladimir Lenin wrote: "Bourgeois democracy,
although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under
capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for
the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor."
Trump most probably will be a one time President... The American people will elect the next time another bullshit artist
but this time probably from Democratic Party..
Notable quotes:
"... I'll give the congressman all of that, especially ..."
"... When the economy is bad, nobody wants a bullsh*t artist in the White House. ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... "He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing but job losses around here." ..."
"... What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back. ..."
Part of the retrenchment is a response to a slowdown in new-car sales that has prompted automakers to slim their operations
and shed jobs. And earlier bets on smaller cars have had to be unwound as consumers have gravitated toward pickup trucks and sport-utility
vehicles in response to low gasoline prices.
In addition, automakers have paid a price for the trade battle that Mr. Trump set in motion. In June G.M. slashed its profit
outlook for the year because tariffs were driving up production costs, raising prices even on domestic steel. Rising interest
rates are also generating headwinds.
Ms. Barra said no single factor had prompted G.M.'s cutbacks, portraying them as a prudent trimming of sails. "We are taking
these actions now while the company and the economy are strong to stay in front of a fast-changing market," she said on a conference
call with analysts.
More:
But demand for small and midsize cars has plunged. Two-thirds of all new vehicles sold last year were trucks and S.U.V.s. That
shift has hit G.M.'s Lordstown plant hard. Just a few years ago, the factory employed three shifts of workers to churn out Chevy
Cruzes. Now it is down to one. In 2017 the plant made about 180,000 cars, down from 248,000 in 2013.
More broadly, the years long boom in car and truck sales in North America appears to be ending, said John Hoffecker, vice chairman
at AlixPartners, a global consulting firm with a large automotive practice. "Sales have held up well this year, but we do see
a downturn coming," he said. AlixPartners forecast that domestic auto sales will fall to about 15 million cars and light trucks
in 2020, from about 17 million this year.
Watching cable news tonight at the gym, I heard an Ohio Democratic Congressman blast the president over this. He ripped Trump
for having made promises to industrial workers in his state in 2016, about how he would bring jobs back. He ripped Trump over the
steel tariffs that have driven up costs of production. And he ripped Trump for not taking his job seriously, for caring more about
Twitter than coming up with a strategy that might save jobs.
I'll give the congressman all of that, especially on Trump being a lazy, golfing-and-tweeting buffoon who doesn't
care about his job. Trump can get away with that when the economy is booming, but now it looks like things might be turning downward.
In Lordstown, workers planned to pray for a miraculous reversal of the company's decision, according to David Green, president
of United Auto Workers Local 1112.
"It's like someone knocks the wind out of you," he said of GM's announcement. "You lose your breath for a minute."
About 40 percent of the local's members voted for Trump, Green said. Now workers want to see the president keep his promises,
he said.
"He came to our community and said, 'Don't sell your house. These jobs are coming back,' " Green said. "We've seen nothing
but job losses around here."
Indeed, even before Monday's announcement, Lordstown had been bleeding jobs. Since Trump took office, GM has eliminated two
shifts and roughly 3,000 jobs at the plant, according to John Russo, a visiting scholar at Georgetown University's Kalmanovitz
Initiative for Labor and the Working Poor.
But we have to face some facts. People aren't buying what GM is making. Aside from the move away from small cars, an effect of
lower gasoline prices, sedan sales have been declining across all manufacturers. This summer, I got a good deal on a 2018 Honda Accord,
a car I really love, and that received rapturous praise from the automobile press when it came out. Honda struggled to sell the cars.
It's not because they're lousy cars. They're actually terrific cars. It's that consumers are losing interest in sedans. What good
does it do GM to manufacture cars that people will not buy?
You can't blame Trump for that.
What you can blame Trump for is exploiting the hopes of Rust Belt people by telling them that he could bring those jobs back.
The Rust Belt made the crucial difference for Trump in 2016. Unless the Democrats' 2020 nominee is someone who is more or less a
space alien, it's going to be hard to win those voters' support when you've improved your Twitter game and your golf score, but those
plants are idle.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey.
Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic
with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women
acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85
percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed
a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite
Julian Assange to
stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel
-- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped
cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall
, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.
His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is
Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200
million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that
is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm
of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby
defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of
the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000
for a supply of 28 pills.
The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal
attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all
you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive
House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department.
Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.
The securities and finance industry
has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared
with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given
$174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And
Michael Bloomberg
, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described
an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of
the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed,
as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and
critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will
still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are
in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his
refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not
to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and
the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic
control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing
on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party
of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump!
This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency
after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast
elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Elections USA, Inc: "Scum Vs. Scum." When I went looking for Hedges's weekly column today I
rather expected him to be onto the next Bigger Picture item that he is always adroit at
tackling.
So it was a little surprising that he chose instead to lead with an example of the midterm
races in his state of NJ, the one between disgraced Democratic Senator Robert Menendez and
Republican Bob Hugin.
He never disappoints.
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political
system than the Senate race in New Jersey. Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was
censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The
senator had flown to the Dominican Republic with Melgen on the physician's private jet and
stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen,
including helping some of the Dominican women acquire visas to the United States. Menendez
was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion
military spending bill, along with 85 percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed a
letter, along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite Julian Assange
to stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign
Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel -- a country that routinely and
massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to
Jerusalem. He helped cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and
investment banks.
In what is so emblematic of how pathetic and corrupt the opposition party, their
presidential candidate came out to throw her support behind such an odious criminal and
corporate whore and to campaign with him. While at the same time the Dems have made no secret
about their intention to crush any candidate who espouses socialist values.
Vote if you want, but it's a charade in which the Duopoly will remain beholden to the same
money interests who paid for both the Red and Blue campaigns.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million
Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's
elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the
State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are
corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and
Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as
Democrats. The securities and finance industry has backed Democratic congressional
candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics. Democratic candidates and political action committees have
received $56.8 million, compared with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The
broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given $174 million to
Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And Michael Bloomberg, weighing
his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who
raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and
excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence
as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw
with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward
prominent Democratic politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party
of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the
favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped
from us. Either way we are in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a
sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort
to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say
that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic
scum, tools of the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street
and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of
the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with
another economic crisis brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political
system is deep and terminal.
"Plus ça change, Plus c'est la même chose."
But it is always necessary to remind folks that the Greatest Democracy In The World is
not. It is An Auction House To The Highest Bidder.
He goes on to talk about fascism, its characteristics, its incarnation today, and the
elements that pave the way for, which are economic instability, concentrated wealth,
monopoly, a police state, imperialism, etc. It is Neoliberalism which has ushered in fascism
across the globe, plain and simple.
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press
has replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The
banal and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our
emotions are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured
events. We are, at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including
sporting events, reality television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of
this form of entertainment. Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the
modern equivalent of the Roman arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs
corporations billions of dollars, is called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans,
which assure us that the freedoms we cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national
discourse as these freedoms are stripped from us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a
vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24
hours a day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in
perpetuity. You cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and
monitored population in human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is
impossible to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot
use the word "liberty" when the state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate
lethal force against unarmed citizens in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the
word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens, mostly poor people of color, are held in the
largest prison system on earth. This is the relationship between a master and a slave. The
choice is between whom we want to clamp on our chains -- a jailer who mouths politically
correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist. Either way we are shackled.
American Exceptionalism reigns supreme to the Nationalist. He refuses to acknowledge that
the real idea of "freedom" is not owning a munitions factory full of weaponry and putting a
flag on the back of a pickup. It is instead the freedom to not have to live in the shadow of
being foreclosed upon for a medical emergency, to not have to spend almost all of one's
income on rent or mortgage debt, to have more time to spend with loved ones or doing what you
love instead of working a dead end job just to pay the bills. In other words, a socialist
economy heavily regulating the banks and corporations, in which debt peonage would largely
become a thing of the past.
And then there it is. "We are being shackled incrementally," by unseen, unelected and
unacknowledged vipers who use their wealth and power to also make sure we're ignorant and
impotent to the real story.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate
fascism. It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that
consolidates power and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political
philosopher Sheldon Wolin, refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate
tyranny or friendly fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin
pointed out, characterized by anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics,
the Constitution and the iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had
seized all of the levers of power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were
being shackled incrementally. Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He
wrote that "a friendly fascist power structure in the United States, Canada, Western
Europe, or today's Japan would be far more sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist
Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it
would require no one-party rule, no mass fascist party, no glorification of the State, no
dissolution of legislatures, no denial of reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an
outgrowth of present trends in the Establishment."
As far as I'm concerned America has been fascist for a long time, at least since 9/11 but
probably longer. We've been captured by Inverted Totalitarianism. Trump just puts the ugly
villainous face to that Fascism which has been rampant for a long time. Lewis Lapham had a
great piece called, "Due Process: Lamenting the death of
the rule of law in a country where it might have always been missing" that lays out the
case for a how concentrated wealth has pretty much ruled with impunity since the beginning.
(h/t to wendy davis)
How long will we continue to participate in this elaborate Lesser of Two Evil voting
sham?
And these days those who do will surely let you know too. All the Good Zombies will be
smiling for their selfies with their, "I Voted" stickers (now an added bonus to your "voting
experience," as if it were a child's toy inside of a cereal box or something). How long will
it be until we're handed little candies as a reward for voting? In step with the continuation
of the infantilization of interaction in America. Civics? Nah. Stickers? Yeah.
Seems we're fucking doomed. But not unless people turn off the tv's and social media to
begin talking to one another in public as fellow human beings, who as the 99% pretty much
have so many of the same concerns in common.
Partisan ideology, blasted night and day on the propaganda networks, keeping us divided
and conquered, with fear, manufactured distraction and celebrity gossip thrown in, to keep
the lemmings hypnotized from what's really going on.
But he also pulled back from saying one shouldn't vote for the Dems to stem Trump's
insanity, although he quickly added that it wouldn't stop the onslaught of corporate
tyranny.
The only thing giving me hope lately is taking the longview, and the emergence of
whistleblowers/journalists exposing the inner workings of the corporate coup. To what degree
it matters will depend on how many people they reach.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
Absent independents, Republicans are running away with it. And independents are most assuredly witnessing the insanity that has gripped the
Democratic Party, and will vote for Republicans at least 9:1.
Well, hang in there, sport. Yes, the US does seem to be going down the tubes, in that it's
lost all respect in the world; we still fear it, but don't respect it. Sic transit
gloria , or something like that...
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
"... Today's Blue elite represents the greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially divorced from the realities of normal American life -- glittering bubbles of sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion, Blue's protests ring the most false . ..."
Today, two righteous paths are gridlocked in opposition. Both perceive themselves as
champions of national renewal, of cleansing corrupted ideals, and of truly fulfilling America's
promise. Both fervently believe that they alone own virtue. Yet the banners of each course are
absolutist mirrors of one another, pro and contra, all or nothing. Moreover, lightning rod
issues, as in the 1770s and 1850s, make the space between battle lines a no man's land, forcing
majority moderates and compromising fence-sitters to choose or be called out as willing
collaborators with the other.
Today's lightning rods -- a feminist reordering of jurisprudence , a
state-promoted LGBT agenda, closed or open borders, full gun rights guarantees -- should not be
seen as mere hot-button issues that can be manipulated at will by political party elites. These
are way-of-life banners for two warring coalitions. Iconic issues that now represent the future
of two tribal alliances are taking the place of a former, single nation. The time for
compromise is over.
Othering. Here, the barren and
inhospitable new civic space is dominated along looming, fortified lines. Warring
identities have concluded that the only solution is the complete submission of the enemy party,
and both sides are beginning to prepare for an
ultimate showdown . Othering is a transforming process, through which former kin are
reimagined as evil, an American inner-enemy, who once defeated must be punished. The most
familiar metaphor of American othering was the 1770s practice of tarring and feathering .
This less-than-lethal mob punishment corresponds -- in shaming power and severity -- to mob
vengeance pervasive today on social media outlets such as Twitter.
Hence, to work fully as othering, the process must be public, result in the shame of the
transgressor, and show that true virtue is in command. More than anything, othering is a
ceremonial act designed to bring shame not just on the single person being tarred and
feathered, but the entire community to which he belongs. The political object of #MeToo is not
the numerically bounded set of guilty men, but rather the entire population set of
all men . The political object of Black Lives Matter is not racists, but rather all
whitepeople . The
political object of the LGBT movement is not homophobes, but
rather the whole of straight cisgender
society whose reality compass they seek to transform.
The targeted other, equally seized by virtue, operates today from an angry defensive crouch.
Thus do corporate elites support marquee Blue "social justice" agendas on Twitter, Facebook,
and YouTube while censoring counterarguments and comment by Red. This is exactly the goal in
this struggle: namely, to condition moderates to widespread acquiescence of a loud and
insistent Blue agenda, while subtly coercing them to choose sides. They do this by arraigning
Red as social losers, the future minority tribe, on their eventual way to the dustbin of
history.
Red and Blue already represent an irreparable religious schism, deeper in doctrinal terms
even than the 16th-century Catholic-Protestant schism. The war here is over which faction
successfully captures the (social media) flag as
true inheritor of American virtue.
The Decision. Othering's most decisive effect is to condition the whole of society to
believe that an existential clash is coming, that all must choose, and that there are no
realistic alternatives to a final test of wills. Remember, in past times, Jacobins on both
sides were small minorities. Yet for either one of these two angry visions to win, there must
be a showdown. This demands, perversely, that they work together to bring on open conflict,
successfully coercing the majority of Americans to buy into its inevitability. At that point,
only a trigger pull is needed.
This was what the Boston Massacre did to push colonials against Britain in 1770, and this is
what
John Brown's Pottawatomie Massacre and Congressman Preston Brooks's
caning of Charles Sumner on the Senate floor did to push people toward civil war in 1856.
This is what the confirmation hearings of Brett Kavanaugh and the nearly two-year effort to
delegitimize and overthrow President Donald Trump may doing today: getting the two halves of
the former nation to pull that trigger.
The Fight. If the political balance shifts dramatically, then conflict checks -- held
in place by lingering political norms and a longstanding electoral standoff -- disintegrate.
Suddenly, both newly advantaged and disadvantaged parties rush to a test of wills sooner rather
than later. A triggering incident becomes a spark -- yet the spark itself does not ignite.
Rather, it is the readiness for combat in this emerging "community of violence" that makes a
fight the natural way forward. In 1774, the Sons of Liberty were spoiling for a fight. In the
1850s, Jayhawkers and Border Ruffians were equally primed to hit back. That pushed the nation
to civil war.
Evidence from history and our own eyes tells us that we are deep into phase four. Three
takeaways show us how close we are to real battle.
Both sides rush to tear down the constitutional order. Just since the 2016 election,
we have witnessed a rolling thunder of Blue and Red elite rhetoric -- packing
the
SupremeCourt,abolishing
the ElectoralCollege , repealing
the
SecondAmendment
, wholesale state nullification of federal law, shackling of voter rights, and Deep State
invocation of the 25th Amendment. These are all potential extremities of action that would not
only dismantle our constitutional order, but also skew it to one side's juridical construct of
virtue, thus dissolving any semblance of adherence to law by the other. Over time each party
becomes emotionally invested in the lust to dismantle the old and make something new.
Hence, constitutional norms exist only conditionally, until such time as they finally be
dismantled, and only as long as a precariously balanced electoral divide holds firm. A big
historical tilt in favor of one party over the other would very quickly push the nation into
crisis because the party with the new mandate would rush to enact its program. The very threat
of such constitutional dismantling would be sure casus belli . Such tilts in the
early 1770s against Britain, and later in
the 1850s against the slaveholding party, were the real tipping points. Not only was
Dred Scott v. Sandford just such a tipping point in 1857, but subconsciously its legacy
weighs heavily on Americans today, as they contemplate -- often with hysterical passion -- the
dread consequences of a Kavanaugh appointment.
The dead hand of the last civil war grabs us from the grave. It is eerie how today's
angst pulls us back to the 1860s -- and shows us what is likely to happen in our third civil
war. If the poisonous hatreds of the 1860s again inform our civil anger today -- i.e. battles
between the alt-right and antifa -- then this should tell us that we are literally on the cusp
of another time of rage, where the continuity of strife is stronger than any hopes for
reconciliation. What is clear is that two warring parties will accept nothing less from the
other than submission, even though the loser will never submit. Moreover, each factional ethos
is incapable of empathizing with
the other.
Yet we should remember that "unconditional surrender" is like an Old Testament doctrine --
meaning that its invocation hearkens unmistakably to God's judgment. It became the
Federal rallying cry throughout the Civil War, a substrate trope in the Versailles Treaty,
the president's official position for the end of World War II, and even our complacent
conviction during the decomposition of the Soviet Union. It is an apocalyptic vision deeply
embedded in both Blue and Red. Such visions presage existential crisis that puts what is left
of the nation at real risk. If, at war's end, the sacred scrolls, artifacts, and symbols -- the
archaeology of a once-cherished identity -- cannot be restored or repurposed, then our entire
history must be destroyed, and the "we" that once was wiped clean. Civil war -- the battle over
how, or whether, we belong to one another -- thus demands nothing less than transformation.
Disbelieving war makes it inevitable. People will always
disbelieve that we could come to blows, until we do. Delegates at the "Democracy" party
convention in Charleston, in the summer of 1860, were still in denial of
the coming fury . No one dares imagine another civil war playing out like the last, when
two grimly determined American armies fought each other to the death in bloody pitched battles.
It is unlikely that a third American civil war will embrace 18th and 19th century military
dynamics. Antique Anglo-American society -- organized around community "
mustering " -- was culturally equipped to fight civil wars. Today's screen-absorbed
Millennials are not. So what?
But the historical consequences of a non-military American civil war would be just as severe
as any struggle settled by battle and blood. For example, the map of a divided America today
suggests that division into functioning state and local sovereignties -- with autonomy over
kinship, identity, and way of life issues -- might be the result of this non-bloody war. This
could even represent de facto national partition -- without de jure secession, achieved through
a gradual process of accretive state and local
nullification .
So what would a non-military civil war look like? Could it be non-violent? Americans are
certainly not lovers, but they do not seem really to be fighters either. A possible path to
kinship disengagement -- a separation without de jure divorce -- would here likely follow a
crisis, a confrontation, and some shocking, spasmodic violence, horrifyingly amplified on
social media. Passions at this point would pull back, but investment in separation would not.
What might eventuate would be a national sorting out, a de facto kinship separation in which
Blue and Red regions would go -- and govern -- their own ways, while still maintaining the
surface fiction of a titular "United States." This was, after all, the arrangement America came
to after 20 years of civil war (1857-1877). This time, however, there will be no succeeding
conciliation (as was achieved in the 1890s). Culturally, this United States will be, from the
moment of agreement, two entirely separate sensibilities, peoples, and politics.
♦♦♦
The winding path to civil war has yet another wrinkle: the people-elite divide. In the 1770s
and the 1850s, American fissuring was championed by opposing elites. In the 1770s, two elites
had emerged: one was the colonial, homegrown elite -- such as Washington, Hamilton, and Adams
-- and the other was the metropole,
trans-Atlantic
British elite , celebrated by royally endowed landowners such as Lord Fairfax , whose holdings
were in the thousands of square miles. Yet the British aristocracy was less intimately engaged
in the colonies, and the loyalist elite a more sotto voce
voice in colonial politics.
Not so the proto-Confederacy, the celebrated "Slave Power." In the looming struggle between
North and South, the Southern elite was the dominant economic force in the nation, thanks to
its overwhelming capital stored in human flesh. In fact, planter aristocracy capital formation
in 1860
equaled all capital invested in manufacturing, railroads, banks, and all currency in
circulation -- combined. This was the power of chattel slavery as the wealth ecology of the
antebellum South. In
defiant opposition to them were the Northern
anti-slavery elites , nowhere as privileged and rich as their Southern counterparts. The
new Republicans were further thwarted by the indissoluble alliance of planter aristocracy and
the nation's financial hub: New York City. There was an unholy bond between a dominant
slaveholder elite and an equally dominant New York slave-enabling elite. To make the point, in
1859, New York shipbuilders outfitted
85 slave ships for the hungry needs of the Southern planter class.
The dominant cultural position occupied by the overlords of chattel slavery has its analogy
today in the overlords of America's Blue elite. While there is a vocal Red elite, the Blue
elite dominates public life through its hold on the Internet, Hollywood, publishing, social
media, academia, the Washington bureaucracy, and the global grip of corporate giants. Blue
elite's power, in its hold on the cultural pulse and economic lifeblood of American life,
compares granularly to the planter aristocracy of the 1850s.
Ruling elites famously overthrown by history -- like the Ancien Régime in
France, Czarist Russia, and even the Antebellum South -- were fated by their insatiable
selfishness, their impenetrable arrogance, and their sneering aloofness from the despised
people -- "the deplorables" -- upon whom their own
economic status feasted .
Today's
Blue elite represents the
greatest concentration of wealth and power in the United States. Moreover, such wealth is
scattered across a mosaic of pristine, manicured, gated communities physically and socially
divorced from the realities of normal American life
-- glittering bubbles of
sovereign privilege . This is the very oligarchy Founders like John Adams
so feared . While both Red and Blue elites represent themselves as the people's champion,
Blue's protests ring the
most false .
America is divided today not by customary tussles in party politics, but rather by
passionate, existential, and irreconcilable opposition. Furthermore, the onset of battle is
driven yet more urgently by the "intersection" of a culturally embedded kinship divide moving
-- however haphazardly -- to join up with an elite-people divide.
Tragically, our divide may no longer be an outcome that people of goodwill work to overcome.
Schism -- with our nation in an ideological Iron Maiden -- will soon force us all to submit,
and choose.
Michael Vlahos teaches strategy and war at Johns Hopkins Advanced Academic Programs and
formerly, at the Naval War College. He is the author of the book
Fighting Identity: Sacred War and World Change .
Likbez
I think that the key for understating the political crisis in the USA is to understand its
connection with the crisis on neoliberalism as an ideology which was encompassed as the USA
national ideology after WWII.
The US neoliberal elite lost the support of the population, and the is what the current
crisis is about. Also, the level of degeneration of the current elite demonstrated by Haley
appointed to the UN and several other disastrous appointments also signify the Us approaching
the situation of " let them eat cakes."
The same time the power of surveillance state is such that outside of random acts of
violence like we observed recently, insurrection is impossible and political ways to change
the situation are blocked.
Neoliberals came to power with Carter, so more than 40 years ago (although formally Reagan
is considered to be the first neoliberal president.) Now they are are losing political power
and popular support.
Trump attempt to reform "classic neoliberalism" into what can be called "national
neoliberalism" or neoliberalism without globalization is probably doomed to be a failure and
not only due to Trump weaknesses as a political leader. He trying increase the level of
neoliberaliztion with the USA failing to understand that the current problems stem from
excessive levels of deregulation (and associated level of corruption), the excessive power of
military industrial complex (supported by Wall Street) which led to waiting for trillion of
arms race and destruction of New Deal Social protection mechanisms.
With the collapse of neoliberalism of global ideology, international standing of the USA
greatly deteriorated, and now in some areas (especially with unilateral Iran sanctions and
behavior in Korea crisis), Trump administration approaches the status of a pariah nation.
My impression is the neoliberalism just can't be reformed the way Trump is trying it to
reform into what can be called "national neoliberalism."
That's probably why intelligence agencies and Clinton wing of the Democratic party,
closely connected to Wall Street launched a color revolution ("Russiagate) against him in
late 2016, trying to depose him and install a more "compliant" leader, who would support
kicking the can down the road.
So the two warring camps now represent "classic neoliberalism" with its idea of the global
neoliberal empire (and related "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine) and "revisionists" of
various flavors (including Trump and Sanders supporters)
BTW neocons, who dominate the USA foreign policy, are also neoliberals, just moonlighting
as lobbyists of the military industrial complex.
I think that globalization as an immanent feature and trump policies this will fail.
As the same, the opposition to neoliberalism on the ground level of the US society demand
reforms and retreat form the globalization, which they connect with outsourcing and
offshoring.
That's why Trump's idea of "national neoliberalism" -- an attempt to retreat from
"globalization" and at the same time to obtain some economic advantages by brute force and
bilateral treaties instead of multilateral organizations like WTO got some initial support.
Along with his fake promises to improve the economic position of the middle class, squeezed
by globalization.
the truth is that the "classic neoliberals" (which are represented by Clinton wing of Dems
and Paul Ryan wing in Republicans ) lost popular support.
Dems, for example, now rely as their major constituency fringe groups and elements of
national security state (that's why so many of their candidates for midterm are associated
with intelligence agencies and military). So they are trying to mobilize elements of national
security state to help them to return to power. That gambit, like Russiagate before it,
probably will fail.
Republicans are also in limbo with Trump clearly betraying his electorate, but still enjoy
some level of ground support.
IMHO his betrayals which is very similar to Obama betrayal(in no way he wants to improve
the condition of the lower middle class and workers, it just hot air) might cost him two
important group of voters who will vote for independent candidates if they vote at all:
1. Anti-war republicans
2. People who want the return of the New Deal.
Factions which are against imperial wars and for more fair redistribution of income in the
society, a distribution which were screwed by 40 years of neoliberalism dominance in the
USA.
So the US electorate have a classic political choice between disastrous and unpalatable
policies once again ;-)
whether that will eventually lead to a military coup in best LA style, we can only
guess.
AP-NORC
Poll national survey with 1,152 adults found 8 in 10 Americans believe the country is
divided regarding essential values, and some expect the division to deepen into 2020.
Only 20% of Americans said they think the country will become less divided over the next
several years, and 39% believe conditions will continue to deteriorate. A substantial majority
of Americans, 77%, said they are dissatisfied with the state of politics in the country , said
AP-NORC.
... ... ...
The nationwide survey was conducted on October 11-14, using the AmeriSpeak
Panel, the probability-based panel of NORC at the University of Chicago. Overall, 59% of
Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling his job as president, while 40% of Americans
approve.
More specifically, the poll said 83% of Republicans approve of how Trump is handling the
job, while 92% of Democrats and 61% of Independents strongly disagree.
More than half of Americans said they are not hearing nor seeing topics from midterm
campaigns that are important to them. About 54% of Democrats and 44% of Republicans said vital
issues, such as health care, education, and economic activity, Social Security and crime, were
topics they wanted to hear more.
Looking at their communities, most American (Republicans and Democrats) are satisfied with
their state or local community. However, on a national level, 58% of Americans are dissatisfied
with the direction of the country, compared to 25%, a small majority who are satisfied.
Most Americans are dissatisfied with the massive gap between rich and poor, race relations
and environmental conditions. The poll noticed there are partisan splits, 84% of Democrats are
disappointed with the amount of wealth inequality, compared with 43% of Republicans. On the
environment, 77% of Democrats and 32% Republicans are dissatisfied. Moreover, while 77%
Democrats said they are unhappy with race relations, about 50% of Republicans said the
same.
The poll also showed how Democrats and Republicans view certain issues. About 80% of
Democrats but less than 33% of Republicans call income inequality, environmental issues or
racism very important.
"Healthcare, education and economic growth are the top issues considered especially
important by the public. While there are many issues that Republicans and Democrats give
similar levels of importance to (trade foreign policy and immigration), there are several
concerns where they are far apart. For example, 80% of Democrats say the environment and
climate change is extremely or very important, and only 28% of Republicans agree. And while
68% consider the national debt to be extremely or very important, only 55% of Democrats
regard it with the same level of significance," said AP-NORC.
Although Democrats and Republicans are divided on most values, many Americans
consider the country's diverse population a benefit.
Half said America's melting pot makes the country stronger, while less than 20% said it
hurts the country. About 30% said diversity does not affect their outlook.
"However, differences emerge by party identification, gender, location, education, and
race . Democrats are more likely to say having a population with various backgrounds makes
the country stronger compared to Republicans or Independents. Urbanities and college-educated
adults are more likely to say having a mix of ethnicities makes the country stronger, while
people living in rural areas and less educated people tend to say diversity has no effect or
makes the country weaker," said AP-NORC.
Overall, 60% of Americans said accusations of sexual harassment with some
high-profile men forced to resign or be fired was essential to them. However, 73% of women said
the issue was critical, compared with 51% of men. The data showed that Democrats were much more
likely than Republicans to call sexual misconduct significant.
More than 40% of Americans somewhat or strongly disapprove of Supreme Court Justice Brett
Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court after allegations of sexual harassment in his
college years. 35% of Americans said they heartily approved of Kavanaugh's confirmation.
The evidence above sheds light on the internal struggles of America. The country is divided,
and this could be a significant problem just ahead.
Why is that? Well, America's future was outlined in a book called "The Fourth Turning: What
Cycles of History Tell Us About America's Next Rendezvous With Destiny."
In the book, which was written in the late 1990s, authors William Strauss and Niel Howe
theorize that the history of civilization moves in 80-to-100 year cycles called "saecula."
The idea behind this theory dates back to the Greeks, who believed that at given saeculum's
end, there would come "ekpyrosis," or a cataclysmic event.
This era of change is known as the Fourth Turning, and it appears we are in the midst of one
right now.
The last few Fourth Turnings that America experienced ushered in the Civil War and the
Reconstruction era, and then the Great Depression and World War II. Before all of that, it was
the Revolutionary War.
Each Fourth Turning had similar warning signs: periods of political chaos, division, social
and economic decay in which the American people reverted from extreme division and were forced
to reunite in the rebuild of a new future, but that only came after massive conflict.
Today's divide among many Americans is strong. We are headed for a collision that will rip
this country apart at the seams. The timing of the next Fourth Turning is now, and it could
take at least another decade to complete the cycle.
After the Fourth Turning, America will not be the America you are accustomed to today. So,
let us stop calling today the "greatest economy ever" and start preparing for turbulence.
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim
Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at
the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the
president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested
he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good
guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some
point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."
Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in
return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors,
reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60
Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this
might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired.
It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary
inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.
But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence
embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that
Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But
his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the
arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as
secretary of state."
The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy
establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward
expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through
ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly
endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the
world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the
general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.
Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and
avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush
administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed
to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass
destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's
aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not
depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he
specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.
The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his
attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican
opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their
first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to
improve.
Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis
crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment
outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of
that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He
supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO
apart."
Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might
have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss.
But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is
cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more
unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal
prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances
that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some
military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and
China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.
He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the
previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the
campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong
philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's
eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion
of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status
could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as
aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not
the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it
on the basis of little knowledge.
That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose
philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for
America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has
never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against
North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and
has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.
Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration
arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's
standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose
views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the
president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of
Democrats than his own."
The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and
Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious
manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a
discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of
Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.
Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and
local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil
Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment
needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN.
Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer
really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a
puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been
assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from
South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the
global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other
wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression
against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals
at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could
even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under
Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of
colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the
military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these
generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals
the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part
of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit
bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for
him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in
2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was
running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took
office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and
enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also
disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy
improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?
Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We
don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of
recent decades.
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would
have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's
post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew
the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.
He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles
about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at
which time he will dump them and make up something else.
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world
affairs.
Fixed:
And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.
This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or
moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this
whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another
theory that contradicts this one.
Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And,
specially, what is he failing to do?
Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the
military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine
as a joke, it is only half a joke.
Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have
little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and
active marching in support.
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:
"Arrest Them"
Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned
Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower
Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?
Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire
Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive
Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs
Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large
Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran
against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "
Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against
Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in
concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by
George W. Bush and Barack Obama."
What did Judas Goat 43 say again?
"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."
I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then?
Past performance does predict future results.
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on
immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to
get us out of the Middle East.
His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).
No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying,
but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.
It's nearly impossible to read major newspapers, magazines, or online publications in recent months without
encountering a
plethora
of articles
contending that the United States is
turning
inward
and "going alone," "abandoning Washington's global leadership role" or "retreating from the world."
These
trends
supposedly herald
the
arrival
of a new "isolationism." The chief villain in all of these worrisome developments is, of course, Donald
Trump. There is just one problem with such arguments; they are vastly overstated bordering on utterly absurd.
President Trump is not embracing his supposed inner isolationist. The policy changes that he has adopted regarding
both security and international economic issues do not reflect a desire to decrease Washington's global hegemonic
status. Instead, they point to a more unilateral and militaristic approach, but one that still envisions a
hyper-activist U.S. role.
For instance, it's certainly not evident that the United States is abandoning its security commitments to dozens of
allies and clients. Despite the speculation that erupted in response to Trump's negative comments about the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances during the 2016 election campaign (and occasionally since
then), the substance of U.S. policy has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, NATO has continued to expand its
membership with Trump's blessing -- adding Montenegro and
planning
to
add Macedonia.
Indeed, Trump's principal complaint about NATO has always focused on European free-riding and the lack of
burden-sharing, not about rethinking the wisdom of the security commitments to Europe that America undertook in the
early days of the Cold War. In that respect, Trump's emphasis on greater burden-sharing within the Alliance is simply
a less diplomatic version of the message that previous generations of U.S. officials have tried sending to the
allies.
Moreover, Trump's insistence at the July NATO summit in Brussels that the European nations
increase
their military budgets
and do more for transatlantic defense echoed the comments of President Obama's Secretary
of Defense
Chuck
Hagel
in 2014. Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or
watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are "not sustainable. Our alliance can
endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it." Rebalancing NATO's "burden-sharing and
capabilities," Hagel stressed, "is mandatory -- not elective."
Additionally, U.S. military activities along NATO's eastern flank certainly have not diminished during the Trump
administration. Washington has sent forces to participate in a growing number of exercises (war games) along Russia's
western land border -- as well as in the Black Sea -- to demonstrate the U.S. determination to protect its alliance
partners. Trump has even escalated America's "leadership role" by authorizing the sale of
weapons
to Ukraine
-- a very sensitive step that President Obama carefully avoided.
Trump even seems receptive to establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. During a state visit
to Washington in mid-September, Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, promised to provide $2 billion toward construction
costs if the United States built a military base in his country. Duda
even
offered
to name the base "Fort Trump." Trump's reaction was revealing. Noting that Poland "is willing to make a
very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland," Trump stated that the United
States would take Duda's proposal "very seriously."
American Conservative
columnist Daniel Larison
notes
that
while Trump often is accused of wanting to "retreat" from the world, "his willingness to entertain this proposal
shows that he doesn't care about stationing U.S. forces abroad so long as someone else is footing most of the bill."
U.S. military activism does not seem to have diminished outside the NATO region either. Washington persists in its
futile regime-change campaign in Syria, and it continues the shameful policy of
assisting
Saudi Arabia
and its Gulf allies pursue their atrocity-ridden war in Yemen. Both of those Obama-era ventures
should have been prime candidates for a policy change if Trump had wished to decrease America's military activism.
There are no such indications in Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. The U.S. Navy's
freedom
of navigation patrols
in the South China Sea have actually increased in size and frequency under Trump -- much to
China's
anger
. Washington's diplomatic support for Taiwan also has
quietly
increased
over the past year or so, and National Security Advisor John Bolton is on record suggesting that the
United States move some of its
troops
stationed on Okinawa
to Taiwan. The
U.S.
military presence
in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, both in overall size and the number of host countries.
Those are all extremely strange actions for an administration supposedly flirting with a retreat from the world to
be adopting. So, too, is Trump's push for increases in America's already bloated military budget, which now exceeds
$700 billion -- with even higher spending levels on the horizon.
Accusations of a U.S. retreat from the world on non-military matters have only slightly greater validity. True,
Trump has shown little patience for multilateral arrangements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris
climate agreement, or the United Nations Human Rights Council that he concluded did not serve America's national
interests. On those issues, the president's actions demonstrated that his invocation of "America First" was not just
rhetoric. However, regarding such matters, as well as the trade disputes with China and North Atlantic Free Trade
Agreement partners, the administration's emphasis is on securing a "better deal" for the United States, not
abandoning the entire diplomatic process. One might question the wisdom or effectiveness of that approach, but it is
a far cry from so-called isolationism.
Indeed, Americans would have been better off if Trump had been more serious about challenging the policy status
quo, especially with respect to security issues. A reconsideration of Washington's overgrown and often obsolete
security commitments to allies and clients around the world is long overdue. Abandoning the disastrous twin
strategies of humanitarian military intervention and regime-change wars is a badly needed step. And waging a new cold
war against Russia is the height of dangerous folly that needs to be reversed.
But contrary to Trump's shrill -- and sometimes hysterical -- critics, America has had no meaningful reconsideration of
such misguided policies or a willingness to adopt a more focused, limited, and prudent U.S. role in the world.
Notions that there has been a pell-mell U.S. retreat from global leadership -- i.e., Washington's hegemonic
pretentions -- under Donald Trump are a myth. What Trump has adopted is merely a more unilateral and militarized version
of a stale foreign policy that does not benefit the American people.
"... Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy of Islamists. ..."
"... The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty. ..."
"... But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness to be "presidential." ..."
"... Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day. ..."
"... Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning out to be just another agent of the power elite. ..."
"... Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? ..."
"... Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy ..."
"... Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion." ..."
"... " while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support." ..."
Did the Deep State deep-six Trump's populist revolution?
Many observers, especially among his fans, suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the Washington,
"globalist" establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump's National Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new
presidency may have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal of Steven K. Bannon from the National
Security Council on April 5.
Until then, the presidency's early policies had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration's first
weeks, Trump's biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what,
on the campaign trail, he said he would do.
In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral actions bearing Bannon's fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation policies, and more.
These policies seemed to fit Trump's reputation as the "
tribune of poor white people
," as he has been called; above all, Trump's base calls for protectionism and immigration restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering
on the populist promise of his inauguration speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:
"Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American
People.
For too long, a small group in our nation's Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.
Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories
closed.
The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories; their
triumphs have not been your triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling
families all across our land.
That all changes – starting right here, and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.
It belongs to everyone gathered here today and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.
What truly matters is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.
Everyone is listening to you now." [Emphasis added.]
After a populist insurgency stormed social media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched from
the hands of the Washington elite and restored to "the people," or at least a large, discontented subset of "the people." And this
happened in spite of the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and "polite opinion" throwing everything it had at Trump.
The Betrayal
But for the past month, the administration's axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump's Syria policy.
Days before Bannon's fall from grace, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump's populist promises.
Trump's nationalist fans are sick of the globalist wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent casualties. But they have had enough of expending
American blood and treasure to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed, was Trump. They also
saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists' renewed Cold War against Assad's ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.
The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump.
For them, acquiescing to the unwelcome planks of Trump's platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing the establishment policies
of regime change in the Middle East and hostility toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn't an unalloyed friend of liberty, these
libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the
state, that could redirect history's momentum in favor of liberty.
But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon's ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack
on civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad's airbases (something even globalist Obama had balked at doing when offered the exact same
excuse), and regime change in Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump's newfound willingness
to be "presidential."
Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw cold
water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise: the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced
an imminent withdrawal from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.
Here I make no claim as to whether any of these policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to the
populist promises he had given to his core constituents.
Poor white people, "the forgotten men and women of our country," have been forgotten once again. Their "tribune" seems to be turning
out to be just another agent of the power elite.
Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup? Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can't beat 'em, join 'em?
The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?
One person who might have thought so was German sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the "iron law of oligarchy" in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy .
Michels argued that political organizations, no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.
Even in a political system based on popular sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, "the sovereign masses are altogether incapable
of undertaking the most necessary resolutions." This is true for simple, unavoidable technical reasons: "such a gigantic number of
persons belonging to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct discussion."
This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders. These delegates may at first be considered
servants of the masses:
"All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs of the general will, play a merely subordinate part,
are always dependent upon the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass of the party is omnipotent."
But these delegates will inevitably become specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually wrest
away from the "sovereign people":
"The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive organization renders necessary what is called expert
leadership. Consequently the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes of leadership, and is gradually
withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than
the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.
Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether it be a political party, a professional union,
or any other association of the kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly."
Trumped by the Deep State
Thus elected, populist "tribunes" like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy.
Especially invincible are technocrats who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security State (military,
NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don't serve "the people" or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own
careers, and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their while: especially big business and foreign
lobbies. The nexus of all these powers is what is known as the Deep State.
Trump's more sophisticated champions were aware of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity from elite influence. That factor did contribute to
the independent, untamable spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:
" while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment opposition, he will never be able to wield it
without establishment support."
No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic, a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power. And
that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump wants to play president, he has to play ball.
On these grounds, I advised his fans over a year ago, " don't hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist rhetoric
" and anticipated, "a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel and the Republican establishment." I also warned that, far
from truly threatening the establishment and the warfare state, Trump's populist insurgency would only invigorate them:
"Such phony establishment "deaths" at the hands of "grassroots" outsiders followed by "rebirths" (rebranding) are an excellent
way for moribund oligarchies to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each "populist" reincarnation of the power
elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And nothing
pleases the State more than war."
Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy's game. And the house always wins.
Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring
content for FEE.org , including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the
FEE website and is reprinted with the author's permission.
"... Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance. ..."
Which is the cohort of voters who allegedly are leaning toward voting Republican in the
mid-terms but who allegedly would refrain if Trump accepted Rosenstein's resignation? And
which is the cohort not already motivated to turn out to vote Democrat but who allegedly
would be motivated by a Rosenstein resignation? Is there real data on these?
I think if I had been a 2016 Trump voter I'd be feeling pretty disappointed about how he's
unable to enforce the most basic discipline and loyalty even among his closest administration
members, and this Rosenstein episode would be yet another egregious example.
If the Republicans do lose either/both houses, the main reason will be that for once
they've taken on the normal Democrat role of being confused and feckless about what they want
to do (they can't bring themselves to whole-heartedly get behind Trump; but a major
Republican strength has been how they normally do pull together an present a united front).
And Trump himself, in his inability to control his own immediate administration, also gives
an example of this fecklessness.
@ Circe who is writing that any who like any of what Trump is doing must be Zionists.
Get a grip. I didn't vote for Trump but favored him over Clinton II, the war criminal.
Trump represents more clearly the face of the ugly beast of debauched patriarchy, lying,
misogyny, bullying and monotheistic "everybody else is goyim" values. Trump very clearly
represents the folks behind the curtain of the Western private finance led "culture". He and
they are both poor representations of our species who are in power because of heredity and
controlled ignorance over the private finance jackboot on the lifeblood of the species.
Luckily there are still groups of our species that don't live totally controlled by
the Western way and the cancer it represents to humanity. They on the outside and "us" on the
inside are trying our hardest to shine lights on all the moving parts in hopes that humanity
can throw off the shackles of ignorance about private/public finance.
I am taking a beginning astronomy class and just learned that it took the monotheistic
religions 600 years to accept the science of Galileo Galilei. We could stand to evolve a bit
faster as we are about to have our proverbial asses handed to us in the form of extinction,
IMO.
That's true only in sense of using "bait and switch" with the electorate. Trump partially
destroyed previous model created by Clinton-Bush-Obama and introduced "national naoliabralism" --
neoliberalism without globalization. He also openly rely on brute force.
Notable quotes:
"... Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people. ..."
"... Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama and now Drumpf. ..."
"... Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for 50. ..."
"... His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North Korea. ..."
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
Agree completely. There's nothing political about these "politics", fake-populist
politicians are just another kind of celebrity (thus Trump fits in well), cable news is a
(highly toxic) genre of entertainment, and partisan Repbots and Dembots aren't political people
at all, but competing celebrity or sports fan clubs. None of them cares about any aspect of
reality, which is why the system can commit such horrendous real-world crimes; for the
political class these crimes aren't real. They're all sociopaths, which is the only way it's
possible to be a partisan of either flavor of the Corporate One-Party.
And that's how unelected operatives and the NYT can openly express such contempt for
democracy and the open society without fear of provoking any significant reaction from the
people: For the kinds of people who read the NYT, such things are meaningless abstractions. Any
of them would happily endorse Hitler-level crimes (which the US is very close to anyway) on the
part of their "team".
If Trump is a fourth of fifth grader, looks like we have a third grade coup d etat. As you
pointed out, these people are not the brightest lights but perhaps the most easily
bribed/threatened? I suspect a hidden hand behind the insurrection rather than a stunning
example of bureaucratic unity. Ditto for the rash of anti Trump 'literature'. Woodward crawled
in bed with the ruling elite decades ago.
Trump is probably not the first president to be 'Trumped' by his bureaucratic minions?n
Obama didn't keep a single campaign promise.during his eight disappointing years. Perhaps not
all of his betrayal of the electorate is because he was just another lying weasel.
Jr @ 19 said:"Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy."
"Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people."
Jr, you nailed it.
Forget ideology, follow the $, you'll understand more..
Draining the Swamp cannot be taken seriously. Trump installed in the Trump Cabinet, Swamp
Creatures through and through, most notably Goldman Sachs dudes we've seen in Dubya Bush, Obama
and now Drumpf.
Also, we see nothing of any draining at this point and but simply an assault on the commons
(and a gift giving for the rich) as would be expected from any boilerplate Republican
asshole.
Now foreign policy may be his strong suit but, there has been nothing much to impress here
either. Just follow Israel.
Trump is his own man and just like Obama he has minions spread garbage that he is being
undermined and the bad stuff is not his fault. Trump showed his true colors when he stocked up
on neocons and warmongers and gave the military $100 billion when they were asking for
50.
His meetings with Kim and Putin were just theater as Trump gleefully puts more sanctions
on Russia and has done nothing but threaten pain for those cheating on sanctions to help North
Korea.
His body language and emphatic delivery, and sometimes glee, when announcing these new
sanctions, and his telling Russia to get out of Syria and give back Crimea, belie the fiction
that Trump is being forced to do so.
If that was the case he could have had his minions announce it. One can see the insincerity
when he claims the US is getting out of Syria and his confident matter of fact delivery when
threatening to bomb Syria over what he knows is a fake gas attack. It was no accident that
Trumps 2 hurried missile strikes on Syria happened as Israel was butchering Palestinians thus
diverting attention from the dastardly deeds. Trump has been best buddies with Israel and Saudi
Arabia and stays mum on Israel bombing Syria and Saudi Arabia killing over tens of thousands of
innocent people in Yemen and creating the humanitarian crisis there.
There's the bonus of weapons sales to those "humanitarian" regimes. Up until recently
organizations have ignored the inhumane UN sanctions that forbade sending medicines into North
Korea and nothing was said. Suddenly last month ALL of them stopped. Somebody gave them the
word stop or else. Trump says nothing of the efforts to scuttle better relations between the US
and North Korea or the fake news that the Norks are still making missiles and nukes offered
with no proof.
While the US is sabotaging the efforts North and South Korea are making great progress which
makes me expect South Korea is going to be hit sanctions for "unfair trade." South Korea could
defuse the whole thing and announce they are taking possession of the Norths nukes but they
know the US would punish them badly as the the US does not want any nukes in the Korea's and
needs a boogie man north to justify it's out sized military presence in the area.
Once Trump sat in the big boy chair in the oval office the focus of Making America Great
Again switched to continue the drive for US world domination by destroying the economies of the
competition and create world wide chaos with sanctions, tariffs, and local currency destruction
making the world come crawling to the US to save them. Thus turning the cleanest dirty shirt in
the laundry to snow white.
b: "Why is no public figure expressing concern about this subversion of democracy? How
come no one protests?"
Trump is the Republican Obama.
'Trumptards' blame others for the failings of their hero just like 'Obamabots' did. This
is not an accident. Apologists are an important part of the faux populist leadership
model.
Trump and Obama are only heros if you believe that USA is democracy and the
democratically elected 'populist' truely represents his/her base. That is a fantasy.
Partisan battles focusing on personalities get people to invest emotionally in "the
system". A system which is NOT democratic and doesn't work for the people.
I have made these points many times over the last year. Sadly, people nod their heads
and continue to engage on terms set by the establishment.
You don't have to get into any deep conspiratorial rabbit hole to consider the
possibility that all this drama and conflict is staged from top to bottom. Commentators
on all sides routinely crack jokes about how the mainstream media pretends to attack
Trump but secretly loves him because he brings them amazing ratings. Anyone with their
eyes even part way open already knows that America's two mainstream parties feign intense
hatred for one another while working together to pace their respective bases into
accepting more and more neoliberal exploitation at home and more and more neoconservative
bloodshed abroad. They spit and snarl and shake their fists at each other, then
cuddle up and share candy when it's time for a public gathering. Why should this
administration be any different?
...
The more I study US politics, the less useful I find it to think of it in political
terms. The two-headed one party system exists to give Americans the illusion of choice
while advancing the agendas of the plutocratic class which owns and operates both
parties , yes, but even more importantly it's a mechanism of narrative control. If
you can separate the masses into two groups based on extremely broad ideological
characteristics, you can then funnel streamlined "us vs them" narratives into each of the
two stables, with the white hats and black hats reversed in each case. Now you've got
Republicans cheering for the president and Democrats cheering for the CIA, for the FBI,
and now for a platoon of covert John McCains alleged to be operating on the inside of
Trump's own administration. Everyone's cheering for one aspect of the US power
establishment or another .
"... A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics." ..."
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while
serving as a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue
to wage war abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill
any of his election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah.
@Diversity Heretic I applied through the GreatAgain website and never received the
courtesy of a reply despite having conributed to the Trump campaign before Iowa, nine years
working on Capitol Hill (for Republicans) and seven years in a regulatory commission (working
for a Republicaén commissioner), a JD and an MBA. So I'm not surprised to hear that
applications through the website were not even considered and jobs filled with Washington
insiders. (The first inclination that I had that something was seriously wrong in the
staffing area was when Calista Gingrich was named as ambassador to the Vatican.) Trump has
the classic problem of the outsider: no institutional mechanism to staff an administration.
(Jesse Ventura had a similar problem when he was elected as governor of Minnesota as an
independent). He compounds that problem by making poor choices that involve his personal
judgment and consideration (e.g., John Bolton and Nikki Haley?!).
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think we're
in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
Increasingly, I see no electoral way to influence or remove the Deep State. I think
we're in for a rough ride and hope that things don't get nuclear with Russia.
It is astonishing that after all the fraudsters and con masters masquerading as politicians
there are huge numbers who claim to believe in the system where humans have voluntarily given
away their freedoms.
Hope and Change, replaced by MAGA.
Do you honestly believe that your Founding Fathers would rebel against King's Tyranny if it
were possible to change it by peaceful means?
@anonymous None of this should have come as a surprise.
"In 2008, Obama was touted as a political outsider who will hose away all of the rot and
bloody criminality of the Bush years. He turned out to be a deft move by our ruling class.
Though fools still refuse to see it, Obama is a perfect servant of our military banking
complex. Now, Trump is being trumpeted as another political outsider.
A Trump presidency will temporarily appease restless, lower class whites, while serving as
a magnet for liberal anger. This will buy our ruling class time as they continue to wage war
abroad while impoverishing Americans back home. Like Obama, Trump won't fulfill any of his
election promises, and this, too, will be blamed on bipartisan politics."
Linh Dinh, as published at The Unz Review, June 12, 2016
The election's only apparent benefit to the people of this country has been the exposure
of corruption and sedition within the Establishment. But that, too, may be part of the show,
another way to channel dissidence into another meaningless election. Even here at The Unz
Review, some columnists and many commenters tell the readership that this November is
critical to protecting President Trump and his agenda, blah, blah, blah. Voting in our
national elections has become another example of evil paraded before us as a moral duty. It
ironically results in disenfranchisement by perpetually legitimizing a federal government as
much at war with its own citizens as with every other people who oppose the new American
Proposition -- the antithesis of a fulfilling human culture wherever it's found, and which
today amounts to claiming that freedom and democracy equate to owning stuff and vicariously
participating in unbridled avarice, sexual depravity, war, torture, and mass murder. Either
party and all that horror is a constant.
So, instead of girding middle America mentally, spiritually, and physically to fight to
the death for what's worth living for, and while there's still some chance to save ourselves
and our nation, we get the Republican leadership, Fox News, and Conservatism Inc blowing
smoke in our eyes, temporizing on behalf of the Deep State by pretending these veiled and
overt calls for white genocide are just in bad taste or that curtesy and cowardice are an
effective policy toward a wildly homicidal left.
This is a very weak article, but it raises several important questions such as the role or neoliberal MSM in color revolution
against Trump and which social group constituted the voting block that brought Trump to victory. The author answers incorrectly on
both those questions.
I think overall Tremblay analysis of Trump (and by extension of national neoliberalism he promotes) is incorrect. Probably the largest group
of voters which voted for Trump were voters who were against neoliberal globalization and who now feel real distrust and aversion to
the ruling neoliberal elite.
Trump is probably right to view neoliberal journalists as enemies: they are tools of intelligence agencies which as agents of
Wall Street promote globalization
At the same time Trump turned to be Obama II: he instantly betrayed his voters after the election. His
election slogan "make Ameraca great again" bacem that same joke as Obama "Change we can believe in". And he proved to be as
jingoistic as Obama (A Nobel Pease Price laureate who was militarists dream come true)
In discussion of groups who votes for Trump the author forgot to mention part of professional which skeptically view neoliberal
globalization and its destrction of jobs (for example programmer jobs in the USA) as well as blue color
workers decimated by offshoring of major industries.
Notable quotes:
"... "Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. " ..."
"... Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas City, July 24, 2018) ..."
"... "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." ..."
"... This is a White House where everybody lies ..."
"... I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ..."
"... The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda. ..."
"... ad hominem' ..."
"... Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical showman diva , behaving in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians. ..."
"... He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication. ..."
"... checks and balance ..."
"... The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current administration and for future ones. ..."
"Just stick with us, don't believe the crap you see from these people [journalists], the fake news Just remember, what
you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening. "
Donald Trump (1946- ), American President, (in remarks made during a campaign rally with Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Kansas
City, July 24, 2018)
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair) (1903-1950), English novelist, essayist, and social critic, (in '1984', Ch. 7, 1949)
" This is a White House where everybody lies ." Omarosa Manigault Newman (1974- ), former White House aide to President
Donald Trump, (on Sunday August 12, 2018, while releasing tapes recording conversations with Donald Trump.)
" I am a mortal enemy to arbitrary government and unlimited power ." Benjamin Franklin (
1706 –
1790 ), American inventor and US Founding Father, (in 'Words of
the Founding Fathers', 2012).
***
In this day and age, with instant information, how does a politician succeed in double-talking, in bragging, in scapegoating and
in shamefully distorting the truth, most of the time, without being unmasked as a charlatan and discredited? Why? That is the mysterious
and enigmatic question that one may ask about U. S. President Donald Trump, as a politician.
The most obvious answer is the fact that Trump's one-issue and cult-like followers do not care what he does or says and whether
or not he has declared a
war on truth and reality , provided he delivers the political and financial benefits they demand of him, based on their ideological
or pecuniary interests. These groups of voters live in their own reality and only their personal interests count.
1- Four groups of one-issue voters behind Trump
There are four groups of one-issue voters to
whom President Donald Trump has delivered the goodies:
Christian religious right voters, whose main political issue is to fill the U. S. Supreme Court with ultra conservative
judges. On that score, Donald Trump has been true to them by naming one such judge and in nominating a second one.
Super rich Zionists and the Pro-Israel Lobby, whose obsession is the state of Israel. Again, on that score, President
Donald Trump has fulfilled his promise to them and he has unilaterally moved the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, in addition
to attacking the Palestinians and tearing up the 'Iran Deal'.
The one-percent Income earners and some corporate owners, whose main demand to Trump was substantial tax cuts and
deregulation. Once again, President Trump has fulfilled this group's wishes with huge tax cuts, mainly financed with future public
debt increases, which are going to be paid for by all taxpayers.
The NRA and the Pro-Gun Lobby, whose main obsession is to have the right to arm themselves to the teeth, including
with military assault weapons, with as few strings attached as possible. Here again President Donald Trump has sided with them
and against students who are increasingly in the line of fire in American schools.
With the strong support of these four monolithic lobbies -- his electoral base -- politician Donald Trump can count on the indefectible
support of between 35 percent and 40 percent of the American electorate. It is ironic that some of Trump's other policies, like reducing
health care coverage and the raising of import taxes, will hurt the poor and the middle class, even though some of Trump's victims
can be considered members of the above lobbies.
Moreover, some of Trump's supporters regularly rely on
hypocrisy and on excuses to exonerate their favorite
but flawed politician of choice. If any other politician from a different party were to say and do half of what Donald Trump does
and says, they would be asking for his impeachment.
There are three other reasons why Trump's rants, his
record-breaking lies , his untruths, his deceptions and his dictatorial-style attempts to
control information , in the eyes of his fanatical supporters, at least, are like water on the back of a duck. ( -- For the record,
according to the
Washington Post , as of early August, President Trump has made some 4,229 false claims, which amount to 7.6 a day, since his
inauguration.)
The first reason can be found in Trump's view that politics and even government business are first and foremost another form
of
entertainment , i.e. a sort of TV reality show, which must be scripted and acted upon. Trump thinks that is
OK to lie
and to ask his assistants to
lie
. In this new immoral world, the Trump phenomenon could be seen a sign of
post-democracy .
The second one can be found in Trump's artful and cunning tactics to unbalance and
manipulate the media to increase his visibility to the general public and to turn them into his own tools of propaganda.
When Trump attacks the media, he is in fact coaxing them to give him free coverage to spread his
insults , his fake accusations, his provocations, his constant
threats , his denials or reversals, his convenient
changes of subject or his political spins. Indeed, with his outrageous statements, his gratuitous accusations and his attacks
' ad hominem' , and by constantly bullying and insulting adversaries at home and foreign heads of states abroad, and
by issuing threats in repetition, right and left, Trump has forced the media to talk and journalists to write about him constantly,
on a daily basis, 24/7.
That suits him perfectly well because he likes to be the center of attention. That is how he can change the political rhetoric
when any negative issue gets too close to him. In the coming weeks and months, as the Special prosecutor
Robert Mueller's report is likely to be released, Donald Trump is not above resorting to some sort of "
Wag the Dog " political trickery, to change the topic and to possibly push the damaging report off the headlines.
In such a circumstance, it is not impossible that launching an illegal war of choice, say against Iran (a
pet
project of Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton), could then look very convenient to a crafty politician like Donald
Trump and to his warmonger advisors. Therefore, observers should be on the lookout to spot any development of the sort in the
coming weeks.
That one man and his entourage could whimsically consider launching a
war of aggression is a throwback to ancient times
and is a sure indication of the level of depravity to which current politics has fallen. This should be a justified and clear
case for impeachment .
Finally, some far-right media outlets, such as
Fox News and
Sinclair Broadcasting , have taken it upon themselves to systematically present Trump's lies and misrepresentations as some
'alternative' truths and facts.
Indeed, ever since 1987, when the Reagan administration abolished the
Fairness Doctrine for licensing public radio
and TV waves, and since a Republican dominated Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed for the
mass conglomeration of local broadcasting
in the United States, extreme conservative news outlets, such as the Fox and Sinclair networks, have sprung up. They are well
financed, and they have essentially become powerful
political propaganda machines , erasing the line between facts and fiction, and regularly presenting fictitious alternative
facts as the truth.
In so doing, they have pushed public debates in the United States away from facts, reason and logic, at least for those listeners
and viewers for whom such outlets are the only source of information. It is not surprising that such far-right media have also
made Donald Trump the champion of their cause, maliciously branding anything inconvenient as 'fake' news, as Trump has done in
his own anti-media campaign and his sustained assault on the free press.
2- Show Politics and public affairs as a form of entertainment
Donald Trump does not seem to take politics and public affairs very seriously, at least when his own personal interests are involved.
Therefore, when things go bad, he never volunteers to take personal responsibility, contrary to what a true leader would do, and
he conveniently
shifts the blame on somebody else. This is a sign of immaturity or cowardice. Paraphrasing President Harry Truman, "the buck
never stops at his desk."
Donald Trump essentially has the traits of a typical
showman diva , behaving
in politics just as he did when he was the host of a TV show. Indeed, if one considers politics and public affairs as no more than
a reality show, this means that they are really entertainment, and politicians are first and foremost entertainers or comedians.
3- Trump VS the media and the journalists
Donald Trump is the first U.S. president who rarely holds scheduled press conferences. Why would he, since he considers journalists
to be his "enemies"! It doesn't seem to matter to him that freedom of the press is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution by the First
Amendment. He prefers to rely on one-directional so-called 'tweets' to express unfiltered personal ideas and emotions (as if
he were a private person), and to use them as his main public relations channel of communication.
The ABC News network
has calculated that, as of last July, Trump has tweeted more than 3,500 times, slightly more than seven tweets a day. How could he
have time left to do anything productive! Coincidently, Donald Trump's number of tweets is not far away from the number of outright
lies and misleading claims that he has told and made since his inauguration.
The Washington Post has counted no less than 3,251 lies or misleading claims of his, through the end of May of this year, --
an average of 6.5 such misstatements per day of his presidency. Fun fact: Trump seems to accelerate the pace of his lies. Last year,
he told 5.5 lies per day, on average. Is it possible to have a more cynical view of politics!
The media in general, (and
not only American ones), then serve more or less voluntarily as so many resonance boxes for his daily 'tweets', most of which
are often devoid of any thought and logic.
Such a practice has the consequence of demeaning the public discourse in the pursuit of the common good and the general welfare
of the people to the level of a frivolous private enterprise, where expertise, research and competence can easily be replaced by
improvisation, whimsical arbitrariness and charlatanry. In such a climate, only the short run counts, at the expense of planning
for the long run.
Conclusion
All this leads to this conclusion: Trump's approach is not the way to run an efficient government. Notwithstanding the U.S. Constitution
and what it says about the need to have " checks and balance s" among different government branches, President Donald Trump
has de facto pushed aside the U.S. Congress and the civil servants in important government Departments, even his own
Cabinet
, whose formal meetings under Trump have been little more than photo-up happenings, to grab the central political stage for himself.
If such a development does not represent an ominous threat to American democracy, what does?
The centralization of power in the hands of one man is bound to have serious political consequences, both for the current
administration and for future ones.
'Hypocrisy', though a tendentious sort of word, is the key, I think. In electoral politics
40% on either side are going to vote the way they vote regardless of how persuasive the
electoral campaign of candidate A, or the unfittedness of candidate B; so the game is:
persuading those 20% who used to be called 'floating voters'.
And the way you do that is by blank-screening yourself and letting the electors project
onto you, by presenting yourself as Conservative even though you're Labour (as Blair did), or
conversely presenting yourself as radical even though you're a straight-down-the-line
tax-cutting defense-budget-ballooning Republican.
Trump's campaign persuaded many that he would in no way 'conserve', but would rather tear
down the establishment.
Brexit was masterminded by a group of elite hard right wingers who somehow managed to
persuade a large tranche of the electorate that it Remain were all metropolitan elites and
that they were the true voice of the people.
The real challenge is not finding a definition of conservatism that can bracket a genius
like Burke with a moron like Sarah Palin; it's finding a definition that enables a
billionaire playboy to define himself as a man of the people; that allows him to promise eg
free healthcare for all and kicking Wall Street out of politics on the campaign trail without
losing his Conservative bona fides.
Mostly reflexively, not always consciously, The Powers That Be seek to retain and
enlarge their sphere of influence. Nothing, not even the venerated vote, is allowed to
alter that "balance."
That's why the 'Deep State' or whatever one wants to call that malignant organism that has
taken over DC–and much of the West–needs professional toadies like Woody, who
will dutifully report whatever smelly lump of fertilizer the PTB are trying to sell. Bet
Woody's the best paid stenographer in the world, doing a good job of confusing Americans,
keeping them anxious of the unknown, so the PTB can keep herding us towards the NWO
slaughterhouse.
The washed-out journalist then blurted out this in disbelief: "Trump said the 'World
Trade Organization is the worst organization in the world.'"
Another bit of propaganda, as those central banks–like the toxic FED–keep the
world under their thumb by controlling the money flow, printing currencies out of thin air,
then getting paid outrageous sums of interest each year–around 500 Billion in the
US–for their counterfeiting scheme.
That kind of power can and does crash stock markets and wreck economies, as the FED has
been doing since it was spawned in 1913. They and their buddies then buy homes, businesses,
MSM outlets and costly toys for pennies on the dollar, while us 'deplorables' wonder if
they're going to be able to keep making their mortgage payments if they lose their job.
To repeat, this was promised on the campaign trail and in Trump position papers. We now
know who stole those promises from the American people.
"We know?" Some do, but many don't, as they rally around Tubby the Grifter to protect
their savior from those nasty Democrats.
"Drain the Swamp" and "MAGA" were skillfully crafted psyops, most likely from the inner
sanctum of the most pernicious lobbying outfit on Capitol Hill, AIPAC. RT, a news outlet, got
mugged by a sold-out Congress and forced to register as a lobbying outfit, but not AIPAC. No
Sir, why that would be anti-Semitic and only foul, Jew hating Neo-Nazis would even think
about making AIPAC follow the law.
What AIPAC has and continues to do needs to be kept hidden from the American public, lest
they engage in the dangerous behavior of actually wondering if Israel is an ally or a
well-disguised enemy.
Trump was bought and paid for a LONG time ago, and 2016 was when the bill came due. He was
'Chosen,' not be We the People, but AIPAC and Israel as the best POTUS to do their bidding,
since Hillary carried way too much baggage.
Trump has been the best POTUS for Israel since the traitorous liar LBJ.
All Trump has to do to get rid of the Op Ed guy is to fire all those who want to go to war
withRussia. That would leave him with no staff.
But Trump is not fooling me. You do not make a campaign promise to cooperate with Russia,
and then hire all these people who want to go to war with Russia.
It tells me that Trump was lying during his campaign.
He told us Iraq was the wrong decision, and now he has bombed Syria twice and is ready to
bomb them again; he told us that he wants out of the mid-east; he told us he wanted to
cooperate with Russia.
So I voted for him, but he was lying. I already found out he is a brazen liar. He took
those Clinton women to his debate to humiliate Hillary and Bill Clinton, when all the while
he was doing the same thing with women. That is what I call a brazen liar.
He is a pawn of the State of Israel, nothing more and nothing less. They probably told him
to hire Bolton and all the other war-mongers around him. He's not surrounded by the enemy. He
is surrounded by his friends.
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the
GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them, instead of
putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas of agreement
with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign policy promise
he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences: backing out of the
Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials.
@Admiral
Assbar The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle
against the GOP foreign policy establishment turned over those policy positions to them,
instead of putting people into office who actually looked favorably on him and shared areas
of agreement with him (paleocons, realists, non-interventionists, etc.). The only foreign
policy promise he's kept is the one that happened to align with the neocon preferences:
backing out of the Iran deal.
I guess it must come down to Jared Kushner and his close ties with Israel and the Gulf
Arabs, but still find it bizarre that Trump never reached out to Pat Buchanan, Rand Paul,
Steve Bannon, etc., in selecting foreign policy officials. "The biggest mystery of this whole
presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them "
It seems fairly clear that, whenever a new President is sworn in, he immediately receives
a "pep talk" in which he is informed what he will and will not say and do, and what will
happen to him, his family, their pets, and everyone they have ever spoken to if he disobeys.
Probably this "offer that he can't refuse" is concluded by words along the lines of: " and if
you want to get what the Kennedys got, just try stepping out of line".
J. Edgar Hoover used to do something of the kind when he was head of the FBI, but that was
relatively benign – just a threat of blackmail accompanied by kindly advice never to
fight the FBI.
@AlbionRevisited I was
referring to the campaign, of course we're in a different situation now. It's amazing the way
in which they were able to co-oped his administration. AlbionRevisted wrote: "It's amazing
the way in which they (Neoconservatives) were able to co-oped his (Trump)
administration."
Greetings AlbionRevisited!
Many were disappointed with Trump and that might even include a percentage of the voting bloc
known as "Deplorables."
Nonetheless, after honing into candidate Donald Trump's awful 2017 homage to AIPAC, it
becomes dramatically less amazing how Neoconservatives crept into the White House.
Recall how rabid leftist Neoconservatives wanted Hillary, and how suddenly the naysayer,
Extra-Octane Neoconservative, John Bolton, stuck with the phoney populist, "America
First-After-Israeli-Interests," talkin' Donald J. Trump?
The essence of American presidential campaigns/elections boil down to powerful international
Jewry needs & timing, and disemboweled citizens must take-it or leave-it. Uh, support the
immoral wars and pay the bill!
Thanks, AlbionRevisted.
Herald says: September 12, 2018 at 10:53 am GMT • 100 Words
@Tom Welsh
I am not convinced that Trump started out with good intentions but quickly bowed to threats. Trump was never a principled
person and it seems much more likely that he was always a stooge for the Israel lobby and the MIC.
I used to think that things would have been worse under Hillary but these days I'm even beginning to have doubts on that
score.
jacques sheete, September 12, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT • 100 Words
@Admiral Assbar
The biggest mystery of this whole presidency is why the guy who went to battle against the GOP foreign policy establishment
turned over those policy positions to them
No mystery at all. It was all campaign rhetoric like the Shrub's promises of "a humble foreign policy" and "compassionate
conservatism," O-bomba-'s "hope and change"and Woody 'n Frankies promises to keep the US out of war.
KenH, September 12, 2018 at 12:20 pm GMT
Trump is now becoming more "patriotic" by the day with his willingness to get us into another no-win, forever war in Syria
for Israel. I say we air drop John Brennan into Idlib so he can fight and die like a real man.
"... I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster? ..."
"... IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing himself? ..."
"... I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history. ..."
"... Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure. ..."
"... Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and squandered trillions in pointless wars. ..."
"But a savvy Donald Trump saw the conspiracy right away. And he realized immediately that in
order to carry his campaign agenda to Make America Great Again he must of necessity first
preserve his presidency from the conspiracy of the Deep State, the mainstream media, and the
establishment elites of both political parties"
I agree that this is possibly the case, but what about Rosenstein's Monster?
IOW, why is Mueller being allowed to run amok? Does Trump have a plan to contain the
damage, however fabricated, other than (rightly) criticizing Jeff Sessions for recusing
himself?
I agree with Bob. It's all of them. Dump them all, including Trump, his creepy family and
cronies, and the garbage GOP who passed the biggest deficit budget in US history.
Trump already totally betrayed voters like me, who wanted our troops out of the Middle
East and our resources and focus back on America, Americans, and American infrastructure.
The smell coming from Washington, Wall Street, the MSM, and Silicon Valley is
overpowering.
Liam, the "suckers who voted for Trump" happen to be the electorate. A similar group of
suckers voted for Obama, Bush and Clinton. This trio who preceded Trump were not golden gods
of leadership as I recall. The last two doubled and redoubled the total national debt, and
squandered trillions in pointless wars.
Trump had the sense to encourage development and transport of natural resources. He
slashed mindless regulations and reduced taxes. The economy is growing after the long Obama
depression. His was the worst economy in my lifetime. In the Carter years of stagflation
companies would not hire young grads. In the Obama years that was also the case but many
middle aged workers were let go as well. We might now be seeing real wage increases across
the board. If Trump is a clown, as so many describe, perhaps we should recruit future
presidents from clown schools.
The negligence with which he selected his cabinet is pretty telling
Notable quotes:
"... I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux populist front man. ..."
"... Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'. ..."
"... Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of democracy. ..."
At some point even the most ardent Trump acolyte will have to admit this [Syria]
is now Trump's policy. It is not something done by the neocons, the deep state, the
anonymous resister or the ghost of John McCain without Trump's acquiescence. [And]
He is not ... clueless, oblivious ...
Pat is half right.
I've been saying for over a year that Trump is the Republican Obama. He is a faux
populist front man.
Just like "Obamabots", "Trumptard" apologists blame hardliners for the failings of
their hero. It's all a game. It's part of the faux populist political model. Faux populists
SERVE THE ESTABLISHMENT so they destined to betray their 'base'.
There are two other fallacies that keep cropping up to confuse things:
1) Triumph of Democracy. While some may recognize that USA is no longer a democracy, others continue to insist that
"Trump won" and are incline to suspect Russian interference (even while acknowledging the
flaws in that theory). Few care to delve much deeper (i.e. engage brain cells).
2) President's Constitutional power. You see this mistake made as Pat Lang declares that Trump 'owns' the Syrian mess now. The
President has great power in the US Constitutional system and (sadly) that is why it is so
important to the establishment that it be controlled. Trump was SELECTED, not ELECTED.
Party and Personality are the masks used to keep us divided and maintain the illusion of
democracy.
"... "Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace" to regions such as the Mideast. ..."
"... It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace" (despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior). ..."
"... With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster, repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one around him. You must believe us!" ..."
"... There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the obvious ..."
We gave Trump the presidency, what he does with it is his responsibility. He was warned
repeatedly about the neocons et al, but has chosen to staff up with the same swamp creatures
he ostensibly meant to expurgate.
We are left to wonder how much of this "reality" TV?
"Just get rid of Trump and you'll have a nice, neat, ultra-right-wing Republican as
President." No need for that Diana – for what you describe is what we presently enjoy in the
form of the current President, most especially as it relates to his efforts to bring "peace"
to regions such as the Mideast.
It is becoming something of a dark joke listening to Trump's apologists endlessly repeat
the meme that those opposed to him represent "war" – while he is our hope for "peace"
(despite his never demonstrating one iota of that sort of behavior).
With every further, obvious display of the President's shocking belligerence towards
countries that do not threaten the United States and in areas and matters where it possesses
no valid security interests, the Diana Johnstones of this world spin the prayer wheel faster,
repeat their mantras more urgently and come up with some silly excuses for why what we
observe from Trump is not really what we observe. "It's not Trump – it's every one
around him. You must believe us!"
There's no need for 4- and 5-D chess masters to interpret Trump – what we sees is
what we gots. If there's a "conspiracy" anywhere, it's among those unwilling to remark the
obvious.
"... When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day. ..."
"... The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus they have become imperiled. ..."
"... It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July. ..."
"... In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any, liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political forces have played such a negligible role. ..."
"... s was evident in the Clinton campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down radical dissent. ..."
"... Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level. This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work – pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and districts, is to occupy the (relational) center. ..."
"... That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living. What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days! ..."
When the center does fail to hold, it is usually in periods of political and perhaps
also social upheaval. In those conditions, centrist parties, along with the constituencies they
represent, often radicalize – generally merging into the side that wins the day.
Thus it is mainly in situations in which the regime itself is undergoing fundamental
transformations that the center is depleted of its former occupants. In time, though, a new
mainstream is constituted, and its center again becomes the point on the left/right continuum
where the majority of positions and policies in play at the time cluster.
***
To everyone living through it, it feels as if the Trump presidency has turned the political
scene topsy-turvy. This is what happens when there is an imbecilic president whose governing
style is a low-grade imitation of a mob boss's.
The fact is, though, that the Trump presidency, destructive as it has been, has changed a
good deal less than meets the eye. The foundations of the regime remain the same as before;
fundamental neoliberal economic structures remain intact, and the perpetual war regime that
went into overdrive after 9/11 continues to flourish.
The jury is still out on how effective Trump's verbal assaults on the institutions that
regulate global trade will be. No matter what Trump says, tweets, or thinks, those institutions
were fashioned to work to America's advantage, and still generally do. Evidently, though, they
do not conform well enough to his or his base's understanding of American "greatness"; thus
they have become imperiled.
What is disturbingly clear is that for all but the filthy rich, and especially for anyone
not white as the driven snow, life in Trump's America has taken a turn for the worse.
Trump has been a godsend for "white nationalists," the current euphemism for nativists and
racists. He has legitimated them and their views to an extent that no one would have imagined
just a few years ago.
Also, to the detriment of the health and well being of the vast majority of Americans, Trump
and his minions have done serious harm to America's feeble welfare state institutions.
And even this is not the main reason why there will be hell to pay when the next economic
downturn happens, as it inevitably will, more likely sooner than later. By giving Wall Street
free rein again, and by cutting taxes for the rich, depleting the treasury of financial
resources that could be put to use in a crisis, Trump has all but guaranteed that most
Americans will soon find themselves in straits as bad or worse than ten years ago.
Worst of all, by watering down or setting aside the weak but nevertheless indispensible
environmental regulations in place before their arrival on the scene, Trump has hastened the
day when the world will be hit with, and perhaps be undone by, grave, possibly irreparable,
ecological catastrophes.
There are many other lesser harms for which, directly or indirectly, Trump is responsible.
This is all serious stuff, but while they make life worse for many people and shift the
political spectrum to the right, they do not shake the foundations of the regime in a way that
puts the center in jeopardy -- at least not yet.
In short, what we are living through is not a Trumpian "revolution," not even in the "Reagan
Revolution" sense, but a degeneration of much of what is worth preserving in the old regime.
Trump didn't start the process, but he has come to dominate it, and his mindless and mean
spirited antics accelerate it.
***
If "left," "right," and "center" are understood in relational terms, American politics
plainly does have a left, right, and center. These designations overlay the deeply entrenched,
semi-established duopoly party system that structures the American political scene.
It wasn't always so, but nowadays, almost without exception, Democrats occupy left or
center positions on that spectrum; Republicans line up on its right. In a relational sense, the
center is replete with Democrats; the left not so much. Centrist Republicans, long a vanishing
breed, are, by now, as rare as snowstorms in July.
Understood notionally, where "left," "right," and "center" designate positions on an
historically evolving, widely understood, ideal political spectrum, the situation is much the
same, but with a major difference: there is hardly any left at all.
There have always been plenty of (notional) leftists in the United States, but there has
never been much of an intersection between the left of the political spectrum, understood
relationally, and anything resembling a notional Left.
In this respect, the United States is an exceptional case. There are few, if any,
liberal democratic regimes in modern capitalist states in which notionally leftwing political
forces have played such a negligible role.
This unfortunate state of affairs has become worse in recent decades under the aegis of
(notionally) center-right Democrats like the Clintons and their co-thinkers. Thanks to them,
the Democratic Party today is a (notionally) centrist party through and through.
They succeeded as well as they did partly because our party system stifles progressive
politics more effectively than it is stifled in other ways in other liberal democracies.
The duopoly is still going strong, but, even so, times change. Largely thanks to Trump,
there are now inklings of a notional Left in formation that stands a chance of avoiding
marginalization.
Thus Democrats all along the (relational) spectrum now consider themselves embattled,
challenged from the Left by anti-Trump militants. Many of the challengers come from
under-represented, Democratic-leaning constituencies – the young, women, and "persons of
color" – with traditionally low levels of political participation. In view of the
abundant, well meaning but generally toothless "diversity" blather for which Democrats are
notorious, this is delightfully ironic.
The challengers include African Americans, of course, but also people drawn from sectors of
the population that Trump has targeted and demeaned with particular malice -- Hispanics and
Muslims especially.
The Democratic Party has been actively courting – and colonizing – African
American and other subaltern constituencies for a long time. A s was evident in the Clinton
campaign's efforts to fight back the Sanders insurgency in 2016, it has forged robust political
machines in the process. Their ability to mobilize voters on behalf of mainstream Democratic
candidates has been disappointing however; what they have been mainly good at is tamping down
radical dissent.
But because race and ethnicity intersect with age and gender – and because, in the
final analysis, "it's the politics, stupid" -- many of the African Americans, Hispanics,
Muslims and others now being drawn into the electoral fold will likely not be as amenable to
being coopted by Democratic Party grandees as persons who "look like them" have been in the
past. The danger of cooptation remains formidable, but it is almost certainly surmountable if
the will to resist the pressure is strong.
Thus conditions are now in place for a revival of Left politics at the electoral level.
This frightens the party's leaders. They and the pundits who serve them speak of unity. But is
plain as can be that they are determined to quash whatever they cannot turn to their own
advantage. Corporate media's role in this endeavor is crucial. They are already hard at work
– pushing the all-too-familiar line that the way to win, especially in "red" states and
districts, is to occupy the (relational) center.
In this context, "red," of course, doesn't mean red; it means almost the opposite,
Republican. Only in America!
... ... ...
What passes for a "resistance" in liberal or "democratic socialist" circles nowadays is a
pale approximation of the genuine article. This is not just because the spirit of rebellion has
been bred out of us or because of any failure of imagination; it is because in the
circumstances that currently obtain, resistance, like "revolution," even in the anodyne "Our
Revolution" sense, just isn't on the agenda.
But there is something now that can and should be resisted by any and all appropriate means
– the illusion that the way to defeat Trump and Trumpism and, more generally, to advance
progressive causes, is to tack to the relational center.
That center in today's Democratic Party is a dead center; it is where progressive
impulses go to die. And, like a vampire on a mission, that dead center is gearing up for a
fight – against those who would challenge the Democratic Party from the left. Witness the
weeklong spectacle that accompanied the departure of John McCain from the land of the living.
What a nauseating display of veneration for a man supremely unworthy, and of nostalgia for the
good old (actually bad old) pre-Trump days!
How pathetic! The whole country's, not just the Democratic Party's, left, right, and center
– minus Donald Trump, of course -- heaping praise on a Navy pilot who, heeding McCain
family traditions and the call of Lyndon Johnson, killed a lot of Vietnamese peasants for no
defensible reason, before becoming a "hero" after the Vietnamese shot his plane down, and who,
after repatriation, embarked on a legislative career in which, despite a few "maverick"
exceptions, he promoted every retrograde Republican cause that arose, war mongered vociferously
at every opportunity, and did all he could, even before Hillary Clinton took a notion, to get
the Cold War revved up again.
They were all there, every rotten one of them -- from Barack Obama and Joe Biden and, their
brother-in-arms, George W. Bush, the man who, but for Trump, could now boast of being the worst
president in modern times, all the way to the decrepit Henry Kissinger, the never to be
indicted war criminal whom liberals have learned to stop loathing and to call upon for advice
instead.
Even that malevolent airhead couple Jarvanka showed up, invited, it seems, by Senator
Lindsey Graham, McCain's hapless sidekick. This was no popular front. It was a festival of the
dead Center, a blight on the political landscape, and, with Trump sucking up all the air, a
harbinger of things to come.
"... "The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign ..."
"... "The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed, particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down our collective throats." ..."
"The Russia Hoax Theme Got Started As a Dirty Trick by Hillary's 2016 Campaign
"The seed was planted and significant parts of the American voting public noticed,
particularly those who believed that Hillary Clinton had the God-given right to take control of
the Oval Office. One way or another, Team Hillary was going to cram the Russian narrative down
our collective throats."
No question, the woman fits the description "evil," but that sure doesn't make Trump a saint
by comparison.
America's tragedy – one shared by the entire world – is that this is the kind of
choice American voters get, a Hillary Clinton or a Donald Trump.
No matter who wins or loses each American presidential election, the people in general lose
and the establishment wins.
And right now, the American establishment likes and embraces the Clinton nonsense about
Russia. It serves its current purposes. Actually, it wasn't truly Clinton's own nonsense. She
was definitely feeding off a pre-existing set of attitudes in her Washington set.
So, it is more threatening than just a residual from an election campaign.
Another sign that the political divisions are 'pretend' is that the 'Dems', the ostensive
losers re. Trump, have not behaved like a political party who loses. These generally disband,
retire, fold, or make efforts at reform, re-orientation etc. Renewal may be tough but they
often try. (As did the Repubs after Obama's election, though the effort was incredibly weak.)
Nothing like that is going on, because the fight is not political. It is based on tribal
desperate angst at the 'surprise' election of an outsider who holds cards in his hands nobody
can speak about.
To 'True Believers', if [Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez] seems equivocal, or even confused, about
the nature of (Democratic) socialism or expresses anodyne, conformist, safe positions, they
will justify this as sensible reticence. AOC has to appeal to the elusive "center", and
charm skeptical voters by not appearing unduly extreme or, God forbid, radical.
As with Obama and others similarly situated, they pretend that once the ostensible Third
Way newcomer is accepted and established, they can and will gradually disclose their true
political selves, and act accordingly. Regardless of how often this scenario fails to work
as hoped, they remain convinced that it's both unavoidable and prudent.
Ocasio-Cortez is merely a willing actress poster-babe (she will earn a LOT). The role is
not different from prancing about in lovely swish skirts on some MSM-TV series. She was
selected for her looks / background (not the best re. the background, but there aren't many
candidates, which is very hopeful imho), her naiveté, ignorance, and submissive
stance. Some 'fake' younger figures -only women and male gays, girls are more acceptable to
the general public- have to be pictured as up-n-coming Dems, in a kind of sketchy and
unconvincing parade of 'diversity' and so on.
Posted by b on August 30, 2018 at 01:07 PM | Permalink
JR is spot on; The Orange Buffoon and the "witchhunt" against him (just like the "Qanon"
Hollywood-style drama-thriller) are smoke and mirrors to keep the peasants occupied with
bullcrap, while the
cleptofascists are done robbing you blind...
The simple truth is that all "western" societies and democracies are hijacked by
(((Transformer Borgs))) and, contrary to what (((snake-oil salesmen))) in $5 000 suits tell
you, there is no way out of this mess through a ballot.
The fact that Mark Zuckerberg is so rich is annoying, and his separateness from Main Street may not be a great thing socially,
but in an economic sense, his fortune did not "come from" the paychecks of ordinary workers...
It damn sure did. It came straight out of their pension funds. Thousands of pension funds across the world bought faang stocks
and those workers will be getting fucked in the end while while zuck heads back to hawaii with their money. look at elon, his
company hasn't made dime one in profit but he is a billionaire. amzn, with a p/e of 228. they didn't get that p/e without millions
of ordinary folk buying their overpriced stock. it is pure ponzi-nomics with fascist overtones and the maggots are cashing out
big time.
The greatest fortunes in history have been built in the last 10 years with 0% interest rates. You were spot on about pensions,
they were the casualties, almost every private pension in the country bankrupted by 0% rates so that these fucks could amass unimaginable
wealth.
Now the filthy commoner scum have the audacity to suggest that they should pay taxes on it. Where will the madness end?
All my friends Jews knew this was going to happen. They were buying stocks like crazy when I was telling them to buy gold and
get ready for a big reset that never happened. Ten years later they are all multimillionaires and I lost half of my money buying
gold...
institutions bought their shares with real earned money. bezos did not. as far as i'm concerned being a ceo is a license to
steal. bezos damn sure didn't earn that money because he is smarter or works harder than anyone else. look at how he treats his
workers. what an asshole.
It's even worse than that. So much worse. Facebook was stolen by the Satanic Judaic Zionist crowd. Research it. Another gentleman
invented it. The Jews stole it, like they've stolen pretty much everything else. No wonder Napoleon said that "The Jews are the
master robbers of the modern age". And beyond the criminal vile theft, you have what they are using it for. And that is?
Using it for the 911'd cows in America. And that is you. The Satanic Jews are murdering you and robbing you blind. They 911'd
you physically with the Twin Towers. Now they're doing it mentally and financially with Facebook, a control system grid -- a gate
to herd cattle which they view you as. They are herding you. You'll be 911'd again in larger and larger numbers until the Satanic
Judaic is removed from the World Stage.
Zuckerberg is a planted punk Zionist spook. You're going to have to clear the world of all of these Satanic Judaic ladies and
gentlemen. First the idea needs to come in to show how and why. This is underway.
Ever since the housing crisis I been waiting for the world to become a better place. I see now that I been fooling myself into
believing that we live in a civilized and honest world. Nobody gives a shit about anyone nor anything, people only care about
themselves...
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them. They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or jobs. ..."
"... Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above
This short communiqué is to my friends who are trapped in hating Donald Trump so
much that any "alternative fact" (as long as it is against President Trump) is virtue to them.
They are not realizing that the feud among the 1%, regardless of their Party affiliation is a
family feud. The extreme right wing politicians and billionaires run both the Democratic and
Republican parties. Their arguments are not about our state of healthcare, education or
jobs.
Friends who are dissatisfied with the current political situation (instead of organizing
against the reactionary policies of the current administration or question the congress for
approving the Tax Cut for the rich) are competing in posting the Democratic Party
hysteria against Russia on the social media. They are distracted by the false narrative that
"American Democracy" is under "attack" by one man in Russia, President Putin who has Mr. Trump
in his "pocket".
Those who believe such an absurd storyline rely on the U.S. Intelligence agencies reports
and findings! These are the same agencies that informed Americans that Saddam Hussein had
Weapons of Mass Destruction. They are the same people who justified war against Iraq in 2003
which opened the gates of hell in that region for decades. Now, after they had succeeded in
blowing up people and countries in the Middle East on false information, the ladies and
gentlemen of the U.S. intelligence agencies have found a new bogeyman to scare the American
people. This is just another DISTRACTION , period.
The fascistic minded President of the U.S. is not in anybody's pocket. As a matter of fact,
today it is the political pocket pickers in Washington who are robbing the American working
people and holding us as hostages. When was the last time that you saw the White House or
Congress address the working people's real needs and problems? Some friends are mesmerized by
the nastiness of the 1% cultural values. However exposing Mr. Trump sexual affair with a "Porn
Star" will not help the American people's struggle for the Minimum Wage or Protecting
Environment, Immigration and so on. This is just another DISTRACTION .
Under bright light, President Trump and his opponents play out their childish, embarrassing
show against each other in front of the corrupt media, while in the shadow of
DISTRACTION they are limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH and taking away our democratic
rights. Both parties are afraid of the energy and determination of workers, farmers, women and
youth which eventually could challenge the entire existing miserable system. Historically, they
are well aware of the potential of revolt by people who are organized and conscious. The ladies
and gentlemen in charge of the U.S. foreign and domestic policy are incapable of solving our
social or political problems; the only thing they are good at is to create decoys and
DISTRACTION . The gossip shows on the corporate media are blindfolding us to see the
slaughters in Gaza or Yemen or the devastating consequences of the Trump administration Trade
War drive against the EU and China 1 on American farmers and workers.
Independent and democratic minded people SHOULD NOT take any side between the different
factions of the 1%. We should not allow the 1% use us as their pawns to propagate their hate
and disunity among people.
The White House and Congress are obsolete. Independent and democratic minded people should
UNITE, ORGANIZE and seek a new operating system – a system that puts people's need over
profit.
*
Massoud Nayeri is a graphic designer and an independent peace activist based in the
United States. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
Note: The term Progressive is now so mutilated that it's no longer effective as an identifier
of political affiliation. To be a real Progressive: one must be Anti-War, except in the most dire
of circumstances, which includes being Anti-Imperialist/Anti-Empire; 2nd, one must be Pro-Justice
as in promoting Rule of Law over all else; 3rd, one must be tolerant and willing to listen to
others; and 4th, work for Win-Win outcomes and denounce Zero-sum as the smoke screen for
increasing inequality
The so-called "insurgents" are no such thing. That's a standard Democrat scam to keep
potential apostates roped in. Bernie Sanders always has been a con artist. Not that it's any
secret: His entire senate record is of worthless grandstanding and zero real monkey-wrenching
or grid-locking action .
As for his campaign, from day one he proclaimed he was a loyal Democrat soldier and that
he would support Clinton and do all he could to deliver his supporters to her. He dutifully
kept that promise. Along the way and since the 2016 election he's done zero toward building
any kind of grassroots alternative. That's because he never intended to be part of any real
alternative in the first place. And that's why the DNC always has supported his "independent"
senate campaigns - he does an excellent con-job on behalf of their agenda.
And today he's fully on board with the Russiagate campaign, doing all he can to rope in
"progressives" who might be having doubts about the anti-Russia lunacy. His usual job.
As for the latest wave of progressive heroes, for just one typical example I'll observe
that Ocasio-Cortez immediately after her primary win lost no time scrubbing the anti-war
plank from her site and publicly retracting her previous statements on behalf of the
Palestinians. The Democrat con always runs like clock-work.
And as the post describes, with Russiagate the fake insurgents provide a new service to
the Party: To serve as bogeymen for internally-directed Party propaganda, as an
organizational vehicle to "get out the vote" among establishment loyalists.
There's no way forward with the Democrat Party. It always has been a death trap for all
progressive, let alone radical aspirations. The Party and its partisans must politically
perish completely, as a prerequisite for any good transformation of America.
I suspect Goad is verboten on UR, but allow me to excerpt from "I Didn't Vote for
This" of recent Goad production.
I voted for Trump because he promised to build a wall. Fifteen months into his
presidency, the wall has not been built.
He promised to repeal Obamacare. It has not been repealed.
He promised to focus on domestic rather than foreign issues and pledged a huge program
to rebuild the nation's crumbling infrastructure. No such program has materialized.
He promised to remove the nation's millions of illegal aliens. They are still here.
He promised to defund sanctuary cities. They have not been defunded.
He promised a complete ban on new Muslim immigration.
He promised to eliminate the massive federal debt in eight years. Rather than even
beginning to leave a dent in the debt, it is now over $1.1 trillion higher than it was the
day he took office.
One of the keystones of his campaign was that China was a currency manipulator and
therefore needed to be dealt with harshly. Only three months into his presidency, he
reneged and declared that China was not a currency manipulator.
On the campaign trail, he relentlessly hammered the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Only
three days into his presidency, he withdrew the US from the TPP. And now he's openly
considering rejoining it.
Cogent points, in Reed's context. The only consolation is recognition that a Clinton
presidency would have been much worse. Maybe so, huh?
Yes, but the order of magnitude ebbs. Not that I would make the trade, but dammit, what
happened to America? We've been fucked, and fucked ROYAL, yet all that climbs out of the
political woodwork is flying monkeys.
Aye, clobbering time it may well come to. But pray do not leave out the media whores when
loving ministrations are being meted out. The whole bunch of these lying, whoring, war
drumbeating progeny of Satan need special ministrations, perhaps even more care than the
flying monkeys. Stringing these bastards upside down from meat hooks in public squares may be
too ordinary a ministration, so better and brighter ideas need to be supplied by minds keener
than mine.
"... It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication of how corrupt the system really is. ..."
"... So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. ..."
"... There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in the bureaucracy follow their diktats ..."
"... Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office. ..."
"... Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even admits as much in his statement. ..."
"... And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they are taking it back. That's what this is all about ..."
On Monday, the Monmouth University Polling Institute released the results of a survey that
found that "a large bipartisan majority feel that national policy is being manipulated or
directed by a 'Deep State' of unelected government officials ..
[1] Public Troubled By Deep State, Monmouth University Polling Institute
The Monmouth University Poll was conducted by telephone from March 2 to 5, 2018
with 803 adults in the United States. The results in this release have a margin of error of +/-
3.5 percent. The poll was conducted by the Monmouth University Polling Institute in West Long
Branch, NJ.
According to the survey:" 6-in-10 Americans (60%) feel that unelected or appointed
government officials have too much influence in determining federal policy. Just 26% say the
right balance of power exists between elected and unelected officials in determining policy.
Democrats (59%), Republicans (59%) and independents (62%) agree that appointed officials hold
too much sway in the federal government. ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State", Monmouth.edu)
The survey appears to confirm that democracy in the United States is largely a sham. Our
elected representatives are not the agents of political change, but cogs in a vast bureaucratic
machine that operates mainly in the interests of the behemoth corporations and banks.
Surprisingly, most Americans have not been taken in by the media's promotional hoopla about
elections and democracy. They have a fairly-decent grasp of how the system works and who
ultimately benefits from it. Check it out:
" Few Americans (13%) are very familiar with the term "Deep State ;" another 24%
are somewhat familiar, while 63% say they are not familiar with this term. However, when
the term is described as a group of unelected government and military officials who secretly
manipulate or direct national policy, nearly 3-in-4 (74%) say they believe this type of
apparatus exists in Washington. Only 1-in-5 say it does not exist." Belief in the
probable existence of a Deep State comes from more than 7-in-10 Americans in each partisan
group "
So while the cable news channels dismiss anyone who believes in the "Deep State" as a
conspiracy theorist, it's clear that the majority of people think that's how the system really
works, that is, "a group of unelected government and military officials secretly manipulate or
direct national policy."
It's impossible to overstate the significance of the survey. The data suggest that
representative democracy is a largely a fraud, that congressmen and senators are mostly
sock-puppets who do the bidding of wealthy powerbrokers, and that the entire system is
impervious to the will of the people. These are pretty damning results and a clear indication
of how corrupt the system really is.
The Monmouth survey also found that "A majority of the American public believe that the U.S.
government engages in widespread monitoring of its own citizens and worry that the U.S.
government could be invading their own privacy." .
"Fully 8-in-10 believe that the U.S. government currently monitors or spies on the
activities of American citizens, including a majority (53%)who say this activity is
widespread Few Americans (18%) say government monitoring or spying on U.S. citizens is
usually justified, with most (53%) saying it is only sometimes justified. Another 28% say
this activity is rarely or never justified ." ("Public Troubled by 'Deep State",
Monmouth.edu)
So, along with the fact, that most Americans think democracy is a pipe-dream, a clear
majority also believe that the country has changed into a frightening, lock-down police state
in which government agents gather all-manner of electronic communications on everyone without
the slightest suspicion of wrongdoing. Once again, the data suggests that the American people
know what is going on, know that the US has gone from a reasonably free country where civil
liberties were protected under the law, to a state-of-the-art surveillance state ruled by
invisible elites who see the American people as an obstacle to their global ambitions–but
their awareness has not evolved into an organized movement for change. In any event, the public
seems to understand that the USG is not as committed to human rights and civil liberties as the
media would have one believe. That's a start.
There's no doubt in my mind that the relentless attacks on Donald Trump have reinforced the
public's belief that the country is controlled by an invisible group of elites whose agents in
the bureaucracy follow their diktats. From the time Trump became the GOP presidential nominee
more than 18 months ago, a powerful faction of the Intelligence Community, law enforcement
(FBI) and even elements form the Obama DOJ, have vigorously tried to sabotage his presidency,
his credibility and his agenda. Without a scintilla of hard evidence to make their case, this
same group and their dissembling allies in the media, have cast Trump as a disloyal
collaborator who conspired to win the election by colluding with a foreign government. The
magnitude of this fabrication is beyond anything we've seen before in American political
history, and the absence of any verifiable proof makes it all the more alarming. As it happens,
the Deep State is so powerful it can wage a full-blown assault on the highest elected office in
the country without even showing probable cause. In other words, the president of the United
States is not even accorded the same rights as a common crook. How does that happen?
Over the weekend, former CIA Director and "Russia-gate" ringleader John Brennan fired off an
angry salvo at Trump on his Twitter account. Here's what he said:
"When the full extent of your venality, moral turpitude, and political corruption becomes
known, you will take your rightful place as a disgraced demagogue in the dustbin of history.
You may scapegoat Andy McCabe, but you will not destroy America America will triumph over
you."
Doesn't Brennan's statement help to reinforce the public's belief in the Deep State? How
does a career bureaucrat who has never been elected to public office decide that it is
appropriate to use the credibility of his former office to conduct a pitch-battle with the
President of the United States?
Brennan says "America will triumph over you." But whose America is he talking about? The
American people elected Trump, he is the legitimate president of the United States. Many people
may not like his policies, but they respect the system that put him in office.
Not so, Brennan. Brennan and his cadres of rogue agents have been at war with Trump since
Day 1. Brennan does not accept the results of the election because it did not produce the
outcome that he and his powerful constituents wanted. Brennan wants to destroy Trump. He even
admits as much in his statement.
And Brennan has been given a platform on the cable news channels so he can continue his
assault on the presidency, not because he can prove that Trump is guilty of collusion or
obstruction or whatever, but because the people who own the media have mobilized their deep
state agents to carry out their vendetta to remove Trump from office by any means possible.
This is the "America" of which Brennan speaks. Not my America, but deep state America.
And why do Brennan and his fatcat allies hate Trump so much? They don't. Because it's not really about Trump. It's about the presidency, the highest office in the land. The US Plutocrat
Class honestly believe that they are entitled to govern the country that they physically own. It's theirs, they own it and they
are taking it back. That's what this is all about
"... If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the lower chamber of Congress. ..."
"... Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the field for a favored "star" recruit. ..."
"... The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political vehicle. ..."
An extraordinary number of former intelligence and military operatives from the CIA,
Pentagon, National Security Council and State Department are seeking nomination as Democratic
candidates for Congress in the 2018 midterm elections. The potential influx of
military-intelligence personnel into the legislature has no precedent in US political
history.
If the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely
predicted, candidates drawn from the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as
half of the new Democratic members of Congress. They will hold the balance of power in the
lower chamber of Congress.
Both push and pull are at work here. Democratic Party leaders are actively recruiting
candidates with a military or intelligence background for competitive seats where there is the
best chance of ousting an incumbent Republican or filling a vacancy, frequently clearing the
field for a favored "star" recruit.
A case in point is Elissa Slotkin, a former CIA operative with three tours in Iraq, who
worked as Iraq director for the National Security Council in the Obama White House and as a top
aide to John Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence. After her deep
involvement in US war crimes in Iraq, Slotkin moved to the Pentagon, where, as a principal
deputy assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, her areas of
responsibility included drone warfare, "homeland defense" and cyber warfare.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) has designated Slotkin as one of its
top candidates, part of the so-called "Red to Blue" program targeting the most vulnerable
Republican-held seats -- in this case, the Eighth Congressional District of Michigan, which
includes Lansing and Brighton. The House seat for the district is now held by two-term
Republican Representative Mike Bishop.
The Democratic leaders are promoting CIA agents and Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans. At
the same time, such people are choosing the Democratic Party as their preferred political
vehicle. There are far more former spies and soldiers seeking the nomination of the Democratic
Party than of the Republican Party. There are so many that there is a subset of Democratic
primary campaigns that, with a nod to Mad magazine, one might call "spy vs. spy."
Trump's game looks more and more like a V2.0 of Obama's "bait and switch" game... Another "change we can believe in" scam to
artificially extend the shelf life of neoliberal as a social system.
Notable quotes:
"... My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in). ..."
"... DT has lost some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise, quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.) ..."
"... The rapidly degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT. (Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy, opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or 'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc. ..."
"... On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' ..."
"... The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident. ..."
"... The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them, where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How is that going to play out? ..."
I keep vague track of Trump support by consulting various sites. DT enthusiasts are all very
keen on GAB, the censorship on twitter - reddit - youtube and other pop. drives them totally
crazy.
My take on his support: DT support is far higher than one would expect (duh.. it just isn't
visible in the MSM, remember I predicted he would win when he threw his hat in).
DT has lost
some who voted for him, typically 'anything but Hillary' types, "give him a chance", who are disapointed at his poor performance on some/any/all issues. Some others have checked out of any
involvement in MS pols. and have joined Doomsters, Refusniks, and even (imho) to my surprise,
quasi-anarchists (who lack a platform.)
Technotopists are going out of fashion (> global warming disasters.) -- The rapidly
degrading US socio-economic landscape is no doubt responsible, more so than the person of DT.
(Arguably he is contributing to the decline, other story.) Poverty, sagging life expectancy,
opioid crisis, homelessness, student debt, crumbling infrastructure, cuts in social aid or
'benefits' as the brits say, no future generation, etc.
On the other hand, DT supporters have become more 'radical and committed' as is always the
case in these kind of 'tribal' belonging scenes, they have dragged in family members / friends,
through the usual conduits of social influence in micro-circles. Which has been made
exceptionally easy by the terminal idiocy, blindness and contradictions of the MSM, Dems and
the PTB (incl. top Republicans, corporations, etc.) generally. Authoritarian impulses (which DT
embraces in part - the WALL is a good ex. - for the rest, hmm..) will flourish up to a
point.
The USA has become completely a-political, an oligarchy run by a convoluted circuit of
top-dogs and gals, fights going on at the top (mafia 1 vs. team 2) for grabbing the leftovers
of power/revenue/capture/ etc., not new but now evident.
The top 20% chooses sides, as they have to, merely in function of who is paying them,
where their status comes from, what hopes for children. The rest can check out and face their
fate, or choose a cult, a tribe The next question is, what are the attitudes to civil war? How
is that going to play out?
About non-posts, I was going to go into the murder of Kim Jong-Nam (brother of today's Kim)
which ties two threads together - NKorea and murder by nerve gas. (Hoarse mentioned this in the
other thread.)
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
Is it so difficult to understand that there are strong incentives to create the "Russia
Threat" to hide the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. The current can of political worms
and infighting in Washington, DC between POTUS and intelligence agencies factions supporting
anti-trump color revolution clearly demonstrate that this crisis is systemic in nature. In
this sense, we can talk about the transformation of the US political system into something
new.
One feature of this new system is that the US foreign policy now is influenced, if not
controlled by intelligence agencies. The latter also proved to be capable of acting as the
kingmakers in the US Presidential elections (this time with side effects: derailing Sanders
eventually led to the election of Trump; that's why efforts to depose Trump commenced
immediately.)
A large part of the US elite is willing to create the situation of balancing on the edge
of nuclear war because it allows them to swipe the dirt under the carpet and unite the nation
on bogus premises, suppressing the crisis of confidence in the neoliberal elite.
Neo-McCarthyism witch hunt serves exactly this purpose.
Also now it is clear that the intelligence agencies and Pentagon, play active, and maybe
even decisive part in determining the US foreign policy, US population and elected POTUS be
damned.
Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and his staff showed this new arrangement in Syria in July
2017. And the fact that he was not fired on the spot might well signify the change in
political power between the "deep state" and the "surface state". With the latter one step
closer to being just a Potemkin Village.
So now we are supposed to believe unquestioningly the word of torturers, perjurers and
entrapment artists, all talking about alleged evidence that we are not allowed to see?
Did you learn nothing from the "Iraqi WMD" fiasco or the "ZOMG! Assad gassed his own
peoples ZOMG!" debacle?
Funny how in each of these instances, the intelligence community's lies just happened to
coincide with the agenda of empire.
It will be interesting to see why the interviewing FBI Agents to whom Flynn has admitted to
the Mueller Op telling a lie, or lies, did not avail Flynn the opportunity of the 'lie
circumstantial." From what I think I know about the case, the answers to the questions put to
Flynn were already known to the Agents from wire overhears; and their substance did not
constitute a crime in any case. Why would not the Agents interviewing Flynn have said "If
you're telling me this, we have reason to think that you're mistaken?" If I'm correct in my
understanding, in my opinion, the Agents conducted themselves in a very chickenshit fashion
and I would suspect an Agenda was in play.
Making a more general observation regarding the Mueller Op, it seems to me that not the
least reprehensible effect of its existence is that de facto it has usurped the authority of
the White House and the State Department to conduct Foreign Policy vis a vis Russia. For
example, I doubt very much whether Mueller cleared his ridiculous indictment relating to the
Russian troll farm, a requirement that at one time would have been SOP for any FBI Office or
USAtty Office bringing an indictment of this kind. And even if Mueller did, what would, what
could the WH or State response have been given the mishapen political climate and the track
record of outrageous leaking that so far have gone on without consequence to the leaker.
So the net effect is that Mueller's office is conducting our Russian foreign policy.
Authority without either responsibility or expertise is not a desirable thing when it comes
to forging correct relations with a nuclear power.
Disgusted "liberal". Am I even a "liberal" anymore? I loathe the I-word and the
J-word now with a purple passion. If I see an article from Wapo or NYT or any
of the other "msm", I don't read it. I stopped watching ANY tv, and exclusively
read those who didn't lie about Iraq 2003. What the hell AM I? I despise
Republicans, but the Dems didn't oppose their wars. Now I despise the Dems, and
the right-wingnuts are starting to make sense. Is this cognitive dissonance?
Bizzaro-world? I am one CONFUSED puppy.
Thank you PG
Thoughtful comment.
The Democrats are every bit as much on board with the
wars and the destruction of the working class as are the Republicans.
Where are the respectable liberals in this country?
I despise Democrats as you despise Republicans.
Now I despise them both. I have little loyalty for my government and do not
trust anything that they do.
"... Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it. ..."
"... Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur. ..."
"... But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.) ..."
"... American Psycho ..."
"... The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America. ..."
"... unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do. ..."
"... our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture. ..."
"... That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us. ..."
"... Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal. ..."
"... "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability. ..."
"... Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? ..."
"... JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed. ..."
"... Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets. ..."
"... Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away. ..."
"... My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. ..."
"... The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. ..."
"... There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation. ..."
"... The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. ..."
"... "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." ..."
"... "Four Futures" ..."
"... Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good". ..."
"... Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster. ..."
Yves here. I have been saying for some years that I did not think we would see a revolution, but
more and more individuals acting out violently. That's partly the result of how community and social
bonds have weakened as a result of neoliberalism but also because the officialdom has effective ways
of blocking protests. With the overwhelming majority of people using smartphones, they are constantly
surveilled. And the coordinated 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy Wall Street shows how the
officialdom moved against non-violent protests. Police have gotten only more military surplus toys
since then, and crowd-dispersion technology like sound cannons only continues to advance. The only
way a rebellion could succeed would be for it to be truly mass scale (as in over a million people
in a single city) or by targeting crucial infrastructure.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"[T]he super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues
to grow. An
analysis of
2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion
in total wealth. As of
June 8,
2017 , the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average,
each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people."
-Paul Buchheit,
Alternet
"Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia, Baseball Field"
-NBC News,
June 14, 2017
"4 killed, including gunman, in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco"
-ABC7News,
June 14, 2017
"Seriously? Another multiple shooting? So many guns. So many nut-bars. So many angry
nut-bars with guns."
-MarianneW via
Twitter
"We live in a world where "multiple dead" in San Francisco shooting can't cut through
the news of another shooting in the same day."
-SamT via
Twitter
"If the rich are determined to extract the last drop of blood, expect the victims to
put up a fuss. And don't expect that fuss to be pretty. I'm not arguing for social war; I'm
arguing for justice and peace."
-
Yours truly
When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.
Until elites stand down and stop the
brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come
apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate
the whole of the
Neoliberal
Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There
are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently
militarized "order" to entirely suppress it.
As with the climate, I'm concerned about the short term for sure - the storm that kills this year,
the hurricane that kills the next - but I'm also concerned about the longer term as well. If the
beatings
from "our betters" won't stop until our acceptance of their "serve the rich" policies improves,
the beatings will never stop, and both sides will take up the cudgel.
Then where will we be?
America's Most Abundant Manufactured Product May Be Pain
I look out the window and see more and more homeless people, noticeably more than last year and
the year before. And they're noticeably scruffier, less "kemp," if that makes sense to you (it does
if you live, as I do, in a community that includes a number of them as neighbors).
The squeeze hasn't let up, and those getting squeezed out of society have nowhere to drain to
but down - physically, economically, emotionally. The
Case-Deaton study speaks volumes to this point. The less fortunate economically are already dying
of drugs and despair. If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just
remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?
The pot isn't boiling yet - these shootings are random, individualized - but they seem to be piling
on top of each other. A hard-boiling, over-flowing pot may not be far behind. That's concerning as
well, much moreso than even the random horrid events we recoil at today.
Many More Ways Than One to Be a Denier
My comparison above to the climate problem was deliberate. It's not just the occasional storms
we see that matter. It's also that, seen over time, those storms are increasing, marking a trend
that matters even more. As with climate, the whole can indeed be greater than its parts. There's
more than one way in which to be a denier of change.
These are not just metaphors. The country is already in a
pre-revolutionary state ; that's one huge reason people chose Trump over Clinton, and would have
chosen Sanders over Trump. The Big Squeeze has to stop, or this will be just the beginning of a long
and painful path. We're on a track that nations we have watched - tightly "ordered" states, highly
chaotic ones - have trod already. While we look at them in pity, their example stares back at us.
But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really
the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to
call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points,
too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm
with it.)
"If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible
they'll also aim their anger out as well?"
Not necessarily. What Lacan called the "Big Other" is quite powerful. We internalize a lot
of socio-economic junk from our cultural inheritance, especially as it's been configured over
the last 40 years - our values, our body images, our criteria for judgment, our sense of what
material well-being consists, etc. Ellis's American Psycho is the great satire of our
time, and this time is not quite over yet. Dismemberment reigns.
The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA
is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge
or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers
or, even more grandly, what success means in America.
The idea that agency could be a collective action of a union for a strike isn't even on the
horizon. And at the same time, these same students don't bat an eye at socialism. They're willing
to listen.
But unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do.
Most of the elite do not understand the money system. They do not understand how different
sectors have benefitted from policies and/or subsidies that increased the money flows into these.
So they think they deserve their money more than those who toiled in sectors with less support.
Furthermore, our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population
of individualists who can't see the big picture.
Thank you Gaius, a thoughtful post. That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably
has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel
that our governments are working for us.
Of tangential interest, Turnbull has just announced another gun amnesty targeting guns that
people no longer need and a tightening of some of the ownership laws.
One problem is the use of the term "social contract", implying that there is some kind of agreement
( = consensus) on what that is. I don't remember signing any "contract".
I fear for my friends, I fear for my family.
They do not know how ravenous the hounds behind nor ahead are. For myself? I imagine myself the same in a Mad Max world. It will be more clear, and perception shattering, to most whose lives allow the ignoring of
gradual chokeholds, be them political or economic, but those of us who struggle daily, yearly,
decadely with both, will only say Welcome to the party, pals.
Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on
a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces
people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional,
to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal.
Each person
does what is right in their own eyes, but the net effect is impoverishment and destruction. Life
is unfair, indeed. A social contract is a mutual suicide pact, whether you renegotiate it or not.
This is Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, is we don't speak of Fight Club. Go to the gym,
toughen up, while you still can.
"Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing,
just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability.
Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of
how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best
that can be achieved? Recalling that as my Contracts professor in law school emphasized over and
over, in "contracts" there are no rights in the absence of effective remedies. It being a Boston
law school, the notion was echoed in Torts, and in Commercial Paper and Sales and, tellingly,
in Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction, and even in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.
No remedy, no right. What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social
contract," the "have-naught" halves?
When honest "remedies under law" become nugatory, there's always the recourse to direct action
of course with zero guarantee of redress
"What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract,"
the "have-naught" halves?"
Ah yes the ultimate remedy is outright rebellion against the highest authorities .with as you
say, " zero guarantee of redress."
But, history teaches us that that path will be taken ..the streets. It doesn't (didn't) take a
genius to see what was coming back in the late 1960's on .regarding the beginnings of the revolt(s)
by big money against organized labor. Having been very involved in observing, studying and actually
active in certain groups back then, the US was acting out in other countries particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere, against any social progression, repressing, arresting (thru its surrogates)
torturing, killing any individuals or groups that opposed that infamous theory of "free market
capitalism". It had a very definite "creep" effect, northwards to the mainstream US because so
many of our major corporations were deeply involved with our covert intelligence operatives and
objectives (along with USAID and NED). I used to tell my friends about what was happening and
they would look at me as if I was a lunatic. The agency for change would be "organized labor",
but now, today that agency has been trashed enough where so many of the young have no clue as
to what it all means. The ultimate agenda along with "globalization" is the complete repression
of any opposition to the " spread of money markets" around the world". The US intends to lead;
whether the US citizenry does is another matter. Hence the streets.
JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The
"remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which
has never existed.
The Social Contract, ephemeral, reflects perfectly what contracts have become. Older rulings
frequently labeled clauses unconscionable - a tacit recognition that so few of the darn things
are actually agreed upon. Rather, a party with resources, options and security imposes the agreement
on a party in some form of crisis (nowadays the ever present crisis of paycheck to paycheck living
– or worse). Never mind informational asymmetries, necessity drives us into crappy rental agreements
and debt promises with eyes wide open. And suddenly we're all agents of the state.
Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit.
Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts
with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets.
Solidarity, of course. Hard when Identity politics lubricate a labor market that insists on
specialization, and talented children of privilege somehow manage to navigate the new entrepreneurism
while talented others look on in frustration. The resistance insists on being leaderless (fueled
in part IMHO by the uncomfortable fact that effective leaders are regularly killed or co-opted).
And the overriding message of resistance is negative: "Stop it!"
But that's where we are. Again, just my opinion: but the pivotal step away from the jackpot
is to convince or coerce our wealthiest not to cash in. Stop making and saving so much stinking
money, y'all.
and there's the Karma bec. even now we see a private banking system synthesizing an economy
to maintain asset values and profits and they have the nerve to blame it on social spending.
I think Giaus's term 'Denier' is perfect for all those vested practitioners of profit-capitalism
at any cost. They've already failed miserably. For the most part they're just too proud to admit
it and, naturally, they wanna hang on to "their" money. I don't think it will take a revolution
– in fact it would be better if no chaos ensued – just let these arrogant goofballs stew in their
own juice a while longer. They are killing themselves.
When I hear so much impatient and irritable complaint, so much readiness to replace what we
have by guardians for us all, those supermen, evoked somewhere from the clouds, whom none have
seen and none are ready to name, I lapse into a dream, as it were. I see children playing on the
grass; their voices are shrill and discordant as children's are; they are restive and quarrelsome;
they cannot agree to any common plan; their play annoys them; it goes poorly. And one says, let
us make Jack the master; Jack knows all about it; Jack will tell us what each is to do and we
shall all agree. But Jack is like all the rest; Helen is discontented with her part and Henry
with his, and soon they fall again into their old state. No, the children must learn to play by
themselves; there is no Jack the master. And in the end slowly and with infinite disappointment
they do learn a little; they learn to forbear, to reckon with another, accept a little where they
wanted much, to live and let live, to yield when they must yield; perhaps, we may hope, not to
take all they can. But the condition is that they shall be willing at least to listen to one another,
to get the habit of pooling their wishes. Somehow or other they must do this, if the play is to
go on; maybe it will not, but there is no Jack, in or out of the box, who can come to straighten
the game. -Learned Hand
Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't
just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal
decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected
to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile,
Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity
has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away.
My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think
Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.
Meanwhile, I just got a message from my car-share service: They are cutting back on the number
of cars on offer. Too much vandalism.
Are these things caused by pressure from above? Yes, in part: The class war continues, and
the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly
impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity?
No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies
that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of
the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
DJG: My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash:
Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws
on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest
environmentalists.
Yes, the trash bit is hard to understand. What does it stand for? Does it mean, We can infinitely
disregard our surroundings by throwing away plastic, cardboard, metal and paper and nothing will
happen? Does it mean, There is more where that came from! Does it mean, I don't care a fig for
the earth? Does it mean, Human beings are stupid and, unlike pigs, mess up their immediate environment
and move on? Does it mean, Nothing–that we are just nihilists waiting to die? I am so fed up with
the garbage strewn on the roads and in the woods where I live; I used to pick it up and could
collect as much as 9 garbage bags of junk in 9 days during a 4 kilometer walk. I don't pick up
any more because I am 77 and cannot keep doing it.
However, I am certain that strewn garbage will surely be the last national flag waving in the
breeze as the anthem plays junk music and we all succumb to our terrible future.
Related to this, I thought one day of who probably NEVER gets any appreciation but strives
to make things nicer, anyone planning or planting the highway strips (government workers maybe
although it could be convicts also unfortunately, I'm not sure). Yes highways are ugly, yes they
will destroy the world, but some of the planting strips are sometimes genuinely nice. So they
add some niceness to the ugly and people still litter of course.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the
public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away
in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens
if any, are kept meticulously clean.
Basically, the world people care about stops outside their dwellings, because they do not feel
it is "theirs" or that they participate in its possession in a genuine way. It belongs to the
"town administration", or to a "private corporation", or to the "government" - and if they feel
they have no say in the ownership, management, regulation and benefits thereof, why should they
care? Let the town administration/government/corporation do the clean-up - we already pay enough
taxes/fees/tolls, and "they" are always putting up more restrictions on how to use everything,
so
In conclusion: the phenomenon of litter/trash is another manifestation of a fraying social
contract.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population
views the public space/environment as a shared, common good.
There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game
for commercial exploitation.
I live in NYC, and just yesterday as I attempted to refill my MetroCard, the machine told me
it was expired and I had to replace it. The replacement card doesn't look at all like a MetroCard
with the familiar yellow and black graphic saying "MetroCard". Instead? It's an ad. For a fucking
insurance company. And so now, every single time that I go somewhere on the subway, I have to
see an ad from Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper
classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. From Yves's posting of Yanis Varoufakis's analysis
of the newest terms of the continuing destruction of Greece:
With regard to labour market reforms, the Eurogroup welcomes the adopted legislation safeguarding
previous reforms on collective bargaining and bringing collective dismissals in line with best
EU practices.
I see! "Safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining" refers, of course, to the 2012
removal of the right to collective bargaining and the end to trades union representation for each
and every Greek worker. Our government was elected in January 2015 with an express mandate to
restore these workers' and trades unions' rights. Prime Minister Tsipras has repeatedly pledged
to do so, even after our falling out and my resignation in July 2015. Now, yesterday, his government
consented to this piece of Eurogroup triumphalism that celebrates the 'safeguarding' of the 2012
'reforms'. In short, the SYRIZA government has capitulated on this issue too: Workers' and trades'
unions' rights will not be restored. And, as if that were not bad enough, "collective dismissals"
will be brought "in line with best EU practices". What this means is that the last remaining constraints
on corporations, i.e. a restriction on what percentage of workers can be fired each month, is
relaxed. Make no mistake: The Eurogroup is telling us that, now that employers are guaranteed
the absence of trades unions, and the right to fire more workers, growth enhancement will follow
suit! Let's not hold our breath!
The so-called "Elites"? Stand down? Right.
Every year I look up the cardinal topics discussed at the larger economic forums and conferences
(mainly Davos and G8), and some variation of "The consequences of rising inequality" is a recurring
one. Despite this, nothing ever comes out if them. I imagine they go something like this:
"-Oh hi Mark. Racism is bad.
-Definitely. So is inequality, right, Tim?
-Sure, wish we could do something about it. HEY GUYS, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT MY NEW SCHEME TO BUY
OUT NEW AND UPCOMING COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE MONEY?"
A wet dream come true, both for an AnCap and a communist conspiracy theorist. I'm by no means
either. However, I think capitalism has already failed and can't go on for much longer. Conditions
will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief.
"Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement
or relief." Frase's Quadrant Four. Hierarchy + Scarcity = Exterminism (From "Four Futures" )
Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat
up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there
were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first.
"Greed is good".
Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel.
In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the
early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically
for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates
among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates
were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful
and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical
public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster.
Here in the US the New Deal and other legislation helped preserve social order in the 1930s.
Yves also raises an important point in her preface that can provide support for the center by
those who are able to do so under the current economic framework. That glue is to participate
in one's community; whether it is volunteering at a school, the local food bank, community-oriented
social clubs, or in a multitude of other ways; regardless of whether your community is a small
town or a large city.
" Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and
educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks."
None of which applies to the Imperium, of course. There's glue, all right, but it's the kind
that is used for flooring in Roach Motels (TM), and those horrific rat and mouse traps that stick
the rodent to a large rectangle of plastic, where they die eventually of exhaustion and dehydration
and starvation The rat can gnaw off a leg that's glued down, but then it tips over and gets glued
down by the chest or face or butt
I have to note that several people I know are fastidious about picking up trash other people
"throw away." I do it, when I'm up to bending over. I used to be rude about it - one young attractive
woman dumped a McDonald's bag and her ashtray out the window of her car at one of our very long
Florida traffic lights. I got out of my car, used the mouth of the McDonald's bag to scoop up
most of the lipsticked butts, and threw them back into her car. Speaking of mouths, that woman
with the artfully painted lips sure had one on her
"... As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored "identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented. On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored" agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective. It is all about control of the dialogue. ..."
"... Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power. ..."
"... Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. ..."
"... The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever. ..."
"... I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. ..."
"... "Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative and a way to deflect from economic issues," ..."
"... " it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics." ..."
"... "We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed." ..."
"... I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of the two parties. ..."
"... The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced, the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned, an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their own efforts. ..."
"... Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees and communities. ..."
"... People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII. ..."
"... Gore Vidal quotes JFK as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters" ..."
"... Psychology and other social sciences have been weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to control the outputs (behavior). ..."
"... Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S. government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent at home. ..."
"... Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01. ..."
"... Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it? ..."
"... It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools? ..."
"... The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the hospital were non profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit. There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions. ..."
"... The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity. ..."
"... "As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them'." ..."
"... The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative. ..."
"... The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray. ..."
"... The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem. Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's wheels turning. ..."
"... Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire. As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class. Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures being swarmed, consumerism. ..."
"... The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone. ..."
"... Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails" and other trite nonsense. ..."
"... The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo. ..."
"... The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful and depressing times. May we do so also. ..."
"... Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week, humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and tears of their forebears. ..."
"... The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers, little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the ever narrower interests of the few. ..."
"... Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream" Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition, even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise. ..."
As long as the people of America had a reasonable expectation of gaining a better life, or,
the next best thing, that their children would gain that better life, the Social Contract remained
strong. Aspiration was both a spur to striving within the existing system, and a palliative for
most discontents encountered. Where the status quo did not offer any real hope, the Civil Rights
for minorities being an example, more "robust" methods were necessary, and were employed. What
else is civil disobedience but counter violence against the State? Naturally, the State ramps
up it's 'violence' in an attempt to quash the disaffected masses.
In this struggle, optics and expectations are crucial. As Gil Scott-Heron famously invoked;
"The revolution will not be televised." Paradoxically, by ensuring the wide dissemination of images
of the nascent "Revolution," activists ensured that whatever came out of the Days of Rage would
not be a true revolution. The newsreels of colored people bravely enduring police oppression in
the American South guaranteed that that particular issue would not be dumped down Orwell's "Memory
Hole." Television footage of young American men fighting and dying in Vietnam spurred the families
of those who could even potentially be drafted to go overseas to die for their country to take
to the streets and vote against the war and the warmongers. Gay rights is generally considered
to have begun to take form and substance after the "Stonewall Riots" in New York in 1969. See:
https://www.socialistalternative.org/stonewall-riots-1969/
By "going postal," the New York gays declared loud and proud that the old way of doing business
was no longer acceptable to them.
As Mr. Hudson explained in the piece, the operatives of what Gore Vidal called the Property
Party, (which has two right wings,) co-opted each successive movement. Lower middle class and
working class people had the Koch brothers funded Tea Party pushed on them. The DNC sponsored
"identity groups" quickly sucked all originality out of the various specious "identities" so represented.
On the war front, the Pentagon imposed "embedment" upon journalists. In each case, the viewpoints
of the "average" person so involved were restricted to vistas guaranteed to promote the "sponsored"
agenda. Thus, the present assault upon "alternative" media makes sense from a status quo perspective.
It is all about control of the dialogue.
The main strength of the old style identity politics is it's ability to focus the energies
of participants toward a particular goal. To that end, the concept of the "United Front" is useful.
You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration is the operative concept. Thus, the development
and widespread dissemination of images of a uniting "struggle" are needed. All of this is actually
self evident. What is needed are "leaders" ready to stand up and shout it out over the rooftops.
When Paul Revere made his famous ride, he was actually stopped by British troops before he
could reach either Concord or Lexington, Massachusetts. A companion, a Dr. Prescott made the actual
warnings to the American rebels. Revere and Prescott were members of an extensive Patriot organization.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating towards
a common goal. A "United Front" made the American Revolution. See:
http://www.biography.com/news/paul-reveres-ride-facts
Today's struggle can proceed no differently.
A Doctor and an Artisan, two usually distinct social classes at the time were collaborating
towards a common goal
"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." A bit
of wisdom from the mind of Ben Franklin in the early days of the revolution.
Let us remember, when a college student asked Rep. Nancy Pelosi whether the party might move
toward a more socialistic economic system, she answered, "
We're capitalists. That's
just the way it is. ", and went on to support a return to noblesse oblige, completely failing
to grasp the contradiction between modern neoliberal theology (maximizing shareholder return/profits)
and such niceties as paying a living wage. We the left have a problem we need to attack head-on
– our semantics have been demonized. Socialism is widely disparaged as subordinating individual
will to the state – as tyranny – and the MSM often portrays economic downturns in social democracies
(Venezuela, Argentina) as caused by foolish socialist policies, not broadscale economic issues
(oil glut), or financial stupidity of prior governments (Argentina). I applaud Senator Sanders
for continuing to use the moniker "social democrat" as he has done much to legitimize the word.
We need more. Ich bin ein social democrat.
Oh yes, and I remember wondering when I first read about that "interaction," just what did
Pelosi really mean by Capitalist? As someone else here remarked, she might have been confusing
capitalist with corporatist in her mind.
seeking to impose a doctrine in all circumstances without regard to practical considerations:
1. 'Nancy Pelosi asked whether the party might move toward a more socialistic economic system,
she answered, "We're capitalists. That's just the way it is."
ambrit: Excellent comment. What I would add, though, is that all three of the movements that
you cite had equality as a main goal: Black people wanted equality in civil rights and civil liberties.
The antiwar movement drew strength from the draft, which affected people of all classes (men most
directly) and led to various unequal uses of deferments that are causes of political problems
to this very day. Gay folk also wanted civil rights and civil liberties (although marriage equality
may not be the proper culmination–identity politics gone divergent).
A while back, I read Norberto Bobbio's influential little book, Right and Left. He states that
the main motivators of leftist politics are liberty, equality, and fraternité (let's call it solidarity).
And he points out that leftists usually place equality first. So to animate a new movement, we
have to get back to issues of political and economic equality. The metaphor of The One Percent
is a hint. That hint has to be expanded.
Good point. The American Revolt had it's "Committees of Correspondence." They operated outside
of the MSM of the day. The Civil Rights movement early on had the black churches as sanctuaries
and disseminators of the message. The anti-war movement had both the Underground press and, unwittingly,
later, the MSM of the day proclaiming the problem. In general, each information spreading system
used was not a part of the "Official Version" apparatus.
The point about equality is important. The unmentioned basis of Capitalism is competition.
Competition implies inequality as the outcome. This is not true aspiration, but aspiration's evil
twin, ambition. So, the Left's real uphill slog is going to be to frame the debate about social
policy in an anti-competitive form.
Bashing the .01% is always good fun, but, as many have remarked, and the recent failed Democrat
Party campaigns have demonstrated, a positive goal is needed to really motivate and engage those
of us "on the ground." As earlier remarked, a "Single Payer" healthcare campaign, framed as an
"equality" measure would do the trick. There are doubtless many other issues that would lend themselves
to a similar treatment. Meld these issues into a "Progressive United Front" campaign and we will
begin to see some movement.
In essence, as the earlier socialist and communist thinkers proclaimed, the ownership of the
means of production are a good place to start. Given the unequal distribution of such ownership
however, the next best thing would be the control of the distribution of the fruits of production;
especially germaine with the rise of automation.
I also see the dream ahead of him, beckoning, beguiling, beatifying despite the false realities
around him.
Something to believe in will generally trump something to be fearful of, in the hearts of men.
IMO there's not a practical electoral solution, in the sense of electing a bunch of candidates
at multiple levels of government to unwind or replace all the laws, regulations/lack of regulations,
court decisions, and algorithms that misgovern our lives and misappropriate our wealth.
Building on your comment ambrit@5:29 and Ulysses@8:38:
A – No more than 3 universal issues (Medicare for All; publicly funded tuition for post-secondary
education, training, and apprenticeships; end the wars, for example). Medicare for All is part
of the discussion now and should have a prominent place.
B – Activism continues, as it must and will, in other areas: issues of survival (police violence,
incarceration, homelessness and hunger; minimum wage ); support for activism across issues (Food
not Bombs, ACLU and NLG, Light Brigades, local jail and bail support ); and forward-looking activism
(local sustainable food and energy solutions, workplace and community coops ).
C – Electoral politics that functions as the political arm of the movement for "A" and locally
appropriate subsets of "B" issues. In practical term, this may need to be an insurgency in the
Dem ranks, or more organized Greens, plus coordination with other "third" parties that have a
presence and ballot access in some places.
Then we work on ambrit's:
"You watch my back, I'll show up at your demonstration"
Adding: "We recruit candidates who understand your issues and have policy proposals to address
them, you show up to vote".
I can't find much on the Light Brigades. Who are they?
And my issues at the universal level would be health care for all (with minimal fees and premiums),
free education for all, an end to the endless wars, and, if I may have a fourth, expansion of
Social Security with some big raises to recipients to give people a base income that they can
retire on (or safely go into disability retirement). The money is there for all of these, but
the political will consists of the likes of Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi.
Yes: You watch my back, and I'll watch your back. But "back" is defined broadly–we are all
in this together.
Good Comment. What bothers me is there is a lot of conversation about all our issues and proposed
solutions, but I see no actions taking place. There are no leaders on the national level, other
than Senator Sanders. We need a Socialist Huey Long with a big horn and perhaps a little action
like, Act Up" to get things moving. There is going to be a revolt sooner or later. It will get
to a point where ordinary people, especially our young, who will not take it anymore.
Love Hudson, but no one is right about everything.
He accepts as an article of faith that it would be easier to start a new party than win primaries
in Dem party. Not clear at all.
Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to run
Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues, it does not logically follow that voters do not often
think of themselves and their goals in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural
"us v them" identities that have a powerful effect on politics.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is not
easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym. And what exactly
is the Hudson platform to address debt or FIRE now? I understand the argument (as I understand
it) that 2009 was an opportunity to use bankruptcy of Wall Street to break up economic olarchy
and write down debt for homeowners. I agree. I am angry and frustrated by the lost opportunity.
I also understand the sly reference to having to wait for the next crisis to get another chance.
Why do we have to wait? This is Hudson's concession that there is no general understanding of
the debt problem or support for Willy-Nilly support for dismantling Wall Street or existing debt
relationships.
I am convinced by Hudson that rising housing prices are a scam for loading debt on people and
raising the burden of a rentier class. But most people who own houses are excited when you tell
them housing prices are going up. What exactly should be our political message.
Some districts have strong evangelical communities and find abortion to be the top issue year
in andvyear out. Some evangelicals stuck with Trump in the hope of a Supreme Court that will outlaw
abortion. How to Dems or a new Hudson party win in those districts?
Politics is a fluid business. Forget coalition building (extremely tough), even finding a message
for one voter (who may be of 2 or 3. Or 4 minds about the world, and change views daily, is tough.
In my view, a Progressive majority must be put together piece by piece, place by place, from
the ground up. Bernie articulated a place to start. The Schumer crowd own the Dems now, but it
is a fragile hold. We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate
those ideas to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party
is needed.
Because we have a political system–from the Fed to the Congress to the media–that is designed
to keep current arrangements in place. Public complacency has allowed this to happen and now only
another systemic breakdown is likely to force change on an entrenched elite and confused electorate.
One might hope that the Democratic party would be the necessary force for reform but it's surely
clear by now that its leadership intends to go down with the ship. Time for the rest of us to
pile into the lifeboats (a third party). And even if one believes there is hope for the Dems,
it's unlikely they will change without some serious threat to their power and that would be a
viable third party. For much of the country's history there were lots of third parties and splinter
movements which is what one would expect from such a diverse population. The duopoly is a very
artificial arrangement.
Sanders should never have taken this third party threat off the table and it is why the Dem
leadership doesn't take him seriously. It's also a reason for some of the rest of us to question
his seriousness. "Don't want to be the Nader" isn't the sort of call to arms that has one putting
up the Che posters.
Did Bernie have a big impact? The mainstream media mostly ignore him and the Dems go out of
their way to ignore him by running Perez. And didn't the Bernie endorsed primary challengers in
the last cycle do poorly?
You will only get the elites' attention by threatening their power, not their message. Obviously
establishing a viable third party is extremely difficult which is why I agree with Hudson that
it will take the next crisis to change things. Incrementalism has been shown not to work.
Perez only got 235 votes; Sanders' candidate Ellison got 200. The Democratic Party establishment
did not "ignore" Sanders by running Perez. They were semi-desperately trying to block him (and
his cohort) from advancing on a low rung on the ladder to power.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under ten
years if this tactic were widely deployed.
Wikileaks made it plain what the Democrats do to mavericks who win races without a party bit
in their mouths. The corruption is institutional, it is their operatives' identity. A successful
third party will be very difficult to achieve, but is perhaps possible. A useful Democratic party
is not possible until every careerist is unemployed–ie until their employers run out of money.
That can't come about, as long as there are empowered Democrats and Republicans.
Primary challenges across the nation, in every city council and state assembly race. Again
and again. Then on to the governorships and federal offices. This is the swiftest, least expensive
and least damaging way to power for Sanders partisan. We could take over the party in under
ten years if this tactic were widely deployed.
I agree with this statement.
And it's happening: various groups (Our Revolution, Brand New Congress, Justice Democrats,
and probably others) are planning primary challengers in just that way. And it's already happened
at the
local and district level in California. It's a different political environment than even just
a few years ago and it will be even still more different when some (or, let's hope, many)
of these candidates start winning.
The real problem is corporatism. The power to make decisions on public policy has been transferred
from democratic government to corporations, run by oligarchs. Both political parties in the US
are committed to this political arrangement. The thin veneer of democracy is used to check public
dissatisfaction. In short order, even this facade will be deemed unnecessary and discarded. This
consolidation of power was enabled by masking class consciousness. Worker aspirations mirror their
corporate masters. Life consists of maximizing personal wealth in the form of money and possessions.
Mass media provides the conduit to achieve this conditioning.
Trying to rebuild the Democratic party form within is a waste of energy and time that most
citizens don't have. If anything, the existing political establishment has perfected the techniques
and tools needed to make dissent impotent. This is largely accomplished by perpetuating the myth
that change can occur by working within the existing system, and then undermining effective policy
that would focus on worker interests. The chumps get scraps.
In the end, oligarchy is the cost that must be paid for our modern life of convenience and
endless entertainment. Moving forward must be about rejection. Rejection of the current social
and cultural order. A new party, a true workers party, is needed to restore equilibrium to the
existing power imbalance. The mass of people who have dropped out of the workforce and electoral
system are waiting for leadership to offer a better vision for the future. This vision is not
forthcoming because the human imagination must turn outside the existing failed norms and seek
new horizons removed from capitalist ideology. Political power follows or grows naturally from
a social order, not the other way around. Imposed social orders are always unstable and need violence
to maintain. A way of life determines the political possibilities. This is why those wanting change
must always work outside the existing system, both mentally and physically.
Just as crony capitalist ideology turned the notion of individual freedom on its head to justify
the greatest inequality known to human societies, the remedy centers on the rejection of exploitive
violence. It is based on preservation, regeneration, and a spiritual awareness that one must give
back to the world and not only take from it. To my mind, coalitions built on these principles
stretch across all social groups. Spending time, money, and energy building these networks and
infrastructure will be productive and longer lasting. Strikes, boycotts, and dropping out of the
existing system sends a much more powerful message to the oligarchs. They will respond with violence,
but then their true nature is open for all to see, making it easier for others to reject their
ideology.
Capitalism was born of Feudalism. Individual rights superseding the rights of Kings. Nothing
lasts forever. A post- capitalist world must be first envisioned and then articulated. Capitalism
maintained the inequality and hierarchical use of violence of the previous system. This relationship
forms most of the underlying root causes of intractable problems faced today. Egalitarianism provides
a way and an alternative. Socialist ideas can be suppressed but never eradicated. Human social
evolution points in this direction. Slavery will never return. The human spirt will not allow
it.
What a cavalier and condescending dismissal. With an arrogant wave of the hand, history goes
*poof*. And though you "agree" (how generous of you!) )with some of the symptoms Hudson identifies,
you categorically deny what he identifies as the root systemic cause of those ills. Instead, a
little modest, cautious, sensible, "piece by piece", "place by place" reform around the edges,
and everything will work out just fine in its own time, because abortion.
You are an exemplary and model Democrat, and Exhibit A why left politics will never emerge
from within the Democrat Party.
although it may be an uphill climb now, striking and unionizing still sounds infinitely less
pie in the sky and far more brass tacks and addressing some of the actual problems, than creating
a 3rd party in the U.S.. If that is one's solution they have no right to criticize anyone on their
proposals not being practical. At least striking has some history of actually working.
It is the participation in our own destruction that I am trying to express and get my head
around. Engagement by all means, but somehow the rules need to be changed.
The amount of time, energy, and resources needed to engage in effective politics today is prohibitive
to most citizens. What Hudson is saying is that the two party system in America is broken and
the only way forward is to start anew. I would tend to agree. In my lifetime, the Democratic party
has been reforming for close to 40 years now. That is a long time to be ineffectual concerning
worker's interests. The long dissent of the American workforce is reaching critical mass and some
radical thinking and action is needed.
The left needs to develop some productive alternatives, which again Hudson points out. An egalitarian
alternative needs to be articulated. Candidates running for office as socialists, espousing actual
socialist ideals. Win or loose, speaking in public about socialist ideals can only help. Government
sponsorship of small business and cooperatives over monopolistic corporations. Actually running
and building sustainable communities. As was stated in comments, Sanders raised upwards of 240
million dollars during the last campaign. What is there to show for all that effort and resource
depletion?
An actual show of distain for the elite ruling class for their crass barbarism and masked cruelty
is a start. Followed by actually building something of lasting value.
The "masses of people who have dropped out of the workforce" are old, overweight, have multiple
physical deficits and are hooked on at least 2 types of prescription dope. They will not be manning
your nostalgia-draped barricades. Not ever.
alrighty, everyone who can't get a job is overweight and a drug addict and unhealthy etc..
Get real. Old sometimes has something to do with it, just because companies do age discriminate
in hiring.
I agree with Hudson's critique of FIRE and the problem of debt in our society. But it is
not easy to explain to the general public - which would not recognize the acronym.
People are not a miniscule fraction as stupid as you think they are, and I will posit that this
is one of, if not the main problem with democrat loyalists such as yourself.
first you say this
"Also, while I agree Dems are dominated by Blue Dogs who want to use Wall Street money to
run Repub lite candidates in purple states, and that their appeal to identity politics is manipulative
and a way to deflect from economic issues,"
shorter, I realize democrats don't represent you, and that's too bad but you have no other option
and PH doesn't want you to have another option.
followed by
" it does not logically follow that voters do not often think of themselves and their goals
in terms of racism or religion or guns. Their are cultural "us v them" identities that have a
powerful effect on politics."
Is this unmoored jab at rural identity not a double negative that can be rephrased "it logically
follows that voters think of themselves in terms of racism or religion or guns"? and isn't that
just another way of saying people are stupid and you are not because you can hide your class and
race bias behind a double negative, and people being stupider than you will never know it because
clever, but clever ain't working anymore, and isn't likely to start working any time soon.
You
close with a call for incrementalism yeah that's worked really great for all of us in the hoi
polloi, and you don't fail to mention abortion, the only democrat platform, and schumer et al's
"fragile grip" is in reality an "iron law of institutions" grip and they and you are not going
to let go.
"We can beat them if we find common sense solutions to our problems and articulate those ideas
to our neighbors. We need energy and hard work, but it is not clear that a third party is needed."
so who is this "we" kemo sabe? I am in the veal pen. Come into the veal pen with me. We will be
in the veal pen thanks but no thanks. I've had plenty of common sense discussions with my neighbors,
and it's depressing as we all know none of those sensible policies will be enacted by the useless
to the common citizen and enabler to the criminals on wall street democrat party, rotten to it's
core.
Федеральное агентство по управлению государственным имуществом (Росимущество) was what created
Oligarchs under Yeltsin. It was headed by Chubais who helped make Khordorovsky and the rest of
the Oligarchs incredibly rich. He then headed the 1996 Re-Election Campaign for Unpopular Yeltsin
and bought victory and sold off State assets for nugatory worth.
Khordorovsky was to deliver Yukos to Exxon and let US interests control Russia's natural resources.
Berezhovsky needed a "roof" – he had Chechens protecting his outside interests but once Yeltsin's
liver gave out the KGB Siloviki would put The Family on trial so he found Putin as a Lieut-Col.
with a background in St Petersburg where Chubais had been active for Sobchak also. Putin was the
"roof" to keep the KGB from executing the looters for treason.
Like a new Tsar with Boyars, Putin had to find which were his "Oligarchs" and Berezhovsky turned
his assets over to Abramovich who is Putin's man. Chubais now sits on CFR and JP Morgan Board
for his good works.
Trump won on the slogan Make America Great. I live in upstate NY which is strong republican.
These people thought the slogan meant great for them. That coupled with a bitter hate of Clinton
made it easy for Trump to get their vote. A sad thing is that these voters are very uninformed
and depend on what they know from corporate media especially FOX news. None of them know what
Neoliberal means and that the root of their problems lie with neoliberal policies.
When I tell
them that Obama and Cuomo aren't really democrats but moderate republicans they think I'm out
of my mind. I tend to look at thing objectively based on verifiable facts.Most of these voters
look at issues in an emotional way. They will say Obamacare is bad and need to be repealed. When
you ask them how it's bad the best they can come up with is it forces you to buy insurance and
you can't keep your own doctor. I guess what I'm saying is that the average voter is too lazy
to get informed and relies on the political propaganda fed to them.
At 75 years old I don't see
that the immediate future will change much. The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
Unless someone or a movement can educate them about the evils that are destroying their future,
democracy is dead. Because of how the economy is structured the economic future for most of the
population is grim. They will not be able to afford to retire and will live in poverty. Perhaps
this will wake them up. Unfortunately it will be too late for them.
At best we can work at the margin on the handful of people that are capable of rational thought.
Which is why nothing ever changes, appeals to emotion are always more potent than appeals to reason.
There is no solution.
I also agree that there is no solution, certainly not an evolutionary solution via EITHER of
the two parties.
The big changes in the USA occurred during the Great Depression as financial reform was introduced,
the idea of government infrastructure could provide employment and what I believe is little mentioned,
an increased awareness on the part of many that their success was not achieved solely by their
own efforts.
Many of the USA's post war corporate executives should have remembered that their families
struggled during the thirties, and this may have made them more connected with their employees
and communities.
Now we have a government of the internally connected top 10%, with the bottom 90% detached
and watching from outside.
And CEO's and the executive class have loyalty only to their company's stock price.
The recent rehabilitation of serial screw-up George W. Bush and attempted elevation of serial
screw-up Hillary Clinton is direct evidence that the political class does not care how much harm
they do to the "deplorable" voters they appeal to every 2/4/6 years.
With the money sloshing around DC and the media control of content, how does one replace the
leadership of both parties with more progressive people in any reasonable time frame?
Per Mark Blyth, Global Trump_vs_deep_state is the current response, but what will this morph into after
Global Trump_vs_deep_state hangover manifests?.
I think although it may seem that only a small percent of the population is capable of rational
thought I think this is actually not the case and its more productive (and optomistic) to think
of this issue in terms of a behaviour rather than a fixed capability, like how some ancient Greek
philosophers thought about moral behaviour or how some modern phychologists think about psychopathy.
Almost everyone is capable of rational thought (or moral or psychopathitic behaviour) but its
how often or more precisly in what situations an individual decides to engage in or deploy rational
thought.
Capable of rational thought really doesn't do much good for all the things one has no exposure
to. Ok in this case they may have little real understanding of say leftists ideas. And I really
think they don't. That may not be the case for the political junkies here for political ideas,
but we all have our areas of things (not politics) we may have a similar stupidity about.
Sorry, but I think that's way too disrespectful of other people and not realistic. All, save
those with extreme mental disabilities, are capable of some degree of rational thought. That doesn't
mean they can be quickly or easily convinced, but they will be more amenable to persuasion if
you approach them as equals and open your mind to their reality in order to find the right terms
with which to present your ideas. Bernie has shown himself to be very good at that, as are all
good teachers. Those who insist on framing everything in their own terms without adapting their
communication to another's experience will always get blank stares.
Dehumanizing ("people are sheep") and dismissing our neighbors as incapable of rational (good?)
thinking will get us nowhere. Like I've said, the propaganda is working when we're dividing and
conquering ourselves. That horrid little word often seen in this context, "sheeple," is just another
word for "deplorables."
People are not sheep. We've been psyop'd senseless. "Public relations" began around the turn
of the 20th century. It was ramped up by orders of magnitude after WWII.
Gore Vidal quotes JFK
as saying to him, we've entered an era in which "it is the *appearance of things that matters"
(emphasis original in the TRNN video,
The National Security State with Gore Vidal ). Psychology and other social sciences have been
weaponized and turned against us. With a facile understanding of the human mind (as if it were
nothing but a mere mechanism), immense effort has gone into controlling the inputs in order to
control the outputs (behavior).
Newly declassified documents from the Reagan presidential library help explain how the U.S.
government developed its sophisticated psychological operations capabilities that – over the
past three decades – have created an alternative reality both for people in targeted countries
and for American citizens, a structure that expanded U.S. influence abroad and quieted dissent
at home.
Today, "public opinion" is a Frankenstein's monster. Most of my fellow Americans believe in
a world that never existed and doesn't exist right now. We can't even agree on what happened to
JFK, or MLK, or what happened on 9/11/01.
Contra UF, it's not that people are incapable of rational thought; rather, the information
we have is hopelessly corrupted. People are acting rationally, but the numerators and denominators
have been faked. On purpose. Or did the Russians really do it?
Once again, TPTB thought they had found a magic method of machining people into permanent compliance.
But they neglected the fact that relying on psyops drives people crazy. You just can't keep rejecting
real reality and substituting a manufactured Narrative (looking at you, NYT) forever.
ISTM we're acting without sufficient contact with reality. The effort to control the population,
the better to exploit us, has driven many of us mad. Neglecting the century or so of effort that's
gone into manufacturing consent leads to blaming the victims.
Propagandists and PSYOPeratives have put out the people's eyes, and you berate them for their
blindness?
While I would absolutely agree with everything you've just said and believe the facts you've
cited are the main reason for the bleak outlook for our species, how the myriad of lies fed to
the population is received is a more complex process than just plain deception. People are incredibly
complex and operate on a number of levels simultaneously. For instance the notion that universal
health care or a strong union would be personally beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt
and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary must be known to anyone with functioning
eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the majority have chosen to effectively overlook
this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
It's ironic that our evolutionary highly successful nature of collectivism is now working against
us as a species and leading to a destructive subservience that is almost sadomasochistic. If the
population were to be unequivocally presented with reality I doubt many would tolerate the state
we have now but conversely this would mean that the elite in our society had sanctioned truthfulness,
so we would not really be going against the wishes of the powerful. Basically the fact that the
powerful in our society have presented us with lies means lies are what they want us to believe,
so dutifully most will oblige, however obviously at odds with reality those lies are.
Why such an overwhelming percent of the population do not vote in their own economic interest
is because political affiliations seem to be a complex expression of self-identity, something
which includes attitudes, social prejudices and 'beliefs' that are dependent on complex emotional
interactions between internal and external events, and can include for instance a desire for status
within your tribe, family loyalty, even sadistic impulses. I;m probably wrong about most of this
but part of me cant help feeling some of the victims share a little of the blame
>> For instance the notion that universal health care or a strong union would be personally
beneficial, or that the banking system is corrupt and that all the wars since 1945 have been unnecessary
must be known to anyone with functioning eyes and ears on a relatively conscious level, but the
majority have chosen to effectively overlook this reality I believe for reasons that ultimately
feed in to human predispositions for conformity.
You're projecting your knowledge and views, and then blaming people who don't see things your
way. A majority supports single payer, yes, but the rest is wishful thinking.
If you read Zinn's A People's History of the US, you'll see that even WWII was a manufactured
war. I'm willing to bet a majority still thinks we were attacked out of the blue on Pearl Harbor
Day, despite FDR's plan to provoke Japan. Or that incinerating Nagasaki and Hiroshima ended the
war and saved tens of thousands of US lives. There was an almost perfectly complete news blackout
on the aftermath specifically so that opposition to the bombings couldn't form. There are endless
examples like this.
We're not told what we need to know to govern ourselves. What we are told amounts to propaganda,
sometimes explicitly so.
Yes, a lot of people have drunk the koolaid, some with gusto. Who's pouring it? You can blame
the victims all you like. I blame the people who've deliberately set out to deceive us.
What our deluded brothers and sisters need is our compassion. It's hard to have compassion
for someone trying to run you over for exercising your rights (been there, done that), but no
one ever said it would be easy.
The only hope I see is in the young of our country.
I think Trump, the Repubs and most of the Dems see that too. That's why they've promoted DeVos,
Arnie Duncan, and all the other advocates of "charter schools," strangled public education, and
attacked teachers.
The problem with this approach is that all this does is kill off liberal cosmopolitanism, not
Marxism. Marxism doesn't need a widespread secondarily-educated population to spread. And it definitely
does not need liberal cosmopolitanism as a stepping stone; quite the opposite, really. Just in
the US, when the wobblies and Black Panthers started turning red, how many of their rank and file
went to college or even finished high school?
Considering that the elites are using liberal cosmopolitanism to strangle Marxism (class-only
Marxists want to throw women and nonwhites under the bus to get their single-payer and you, the
woke liberal identitarian, must support capitalism to protect the marginalized), this strategy
is not only pointless but it's also self-defeating.
It's far more simpler. Charter schools are about following the money. Public schools have seemingly
huge revenue streams. Why can't GE get a cut is the thought process? For profit Healthcare was
forbidden until 1973 (thanks to Teddy), why not public schools?
The HMO Act of 1973 (thanks Teddy and Tricky Dick; bipartisanship at its finest) made it easier
to start and run HMOs which faced regulatory hurdles mostly due to financing. Non profits had
an easier time of it hence Hospitals named "St X" or "X General." Since the
hospital were non
profits and employers made deals with the hospitals, health insurance was effectively non-profit.
There were gaps, mostly in rural areas. Other changes from the HMO Act of 1973 encouraged profit seeking
from denial of coverage to pushing unnecessary procedures or prescriptions.
There is a noticeable correlation between this act and the explosion of Healthcare costs.
The Miller Center had a series on Nixon expressing doubts to the Kaiser about HMOs. The arguments
played out just like charter schools today.
I recall hearing the tape of a conversation among Nixon and his aides regarding HMOs. The audio,
like most of the Johnson & Nixon tapes, was poor, but what did come through was Nixon's support
for Kaiser's business model, summed up by Erlichman as, "the less care they give them, the more
money they make."
The US Left has been controlled opposition since 1950. There was never a chance it could provide
a reasonable and effective alternative. FBI/CIA moles make sure they never will. The Democrats
have never been true Left FDR didn't really betray his class, he saved them from their own stupidity.
"As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US
of running a one-party state, 'The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American
extravagance, they have two of them'."
I seem to recall that the identity politics of yore were lacking in solidarity. The antiwar protestors, some of whom were hippies, were beaten up by working class union members.
Remember the hard hat riots? And the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era? Well, they were from the black
churches, and they thought that the hippies were uncouth.
The identity politics of today lack in solidarity, too. What with Hillary Clinton running the
most ageist campaign in memory, Obama breaking the record on deportations, Bill Clinton blowing
racist dogwhistles as hard he can and also helping to shepherd a police state that puts Thailand
to shame, and the whole of the Democratic Party stoking Russophobia and neoconservative.
A cynic might say that liberal identity politics (as opposed to post-Frankfurt/Focault Marxist
identity politics) was intentionally designed to do these things both in the 60-70s and now.
I don't see how antiwar protestors qualify as identity politics, since the group is defined
by a policy concern, not by some quasi-biological tag. Same with working class union members;
policy and economic interests, not tags.
I'd say the same about the African American leadership of the Civil Rights era, even though
they did generally share the tag of being "black". They focused on a policy goal and welcomed
those who didn't share the tag to participate in the struggle.
Identity politics are not the same thing as left-wing or progressive or liberal (or whatever
you want to call it) politics. In very real sense, Identity politics are a form of anti-politics
since they don't address interests, policy or allow any form of accommodation or reconciliation
of different points of view.
Identity politics is about tags. Non-identity politics is about interests and policies.
But the focus is on the policy issues. The campaign for gay marriage was about getting gay
marriage, not about being gay. And anyone who supported gay marriage was a part of that campaign
- gay, straight, black, white, male, female; all the tags. It may have started with those who
were gay, but it wasn't exclusive to the tag.
By contrast, Hillary's campaign was just about the tags. Not doing anything for those with
the tags, or changing any policies, no matter how they affected various tags, or even addressing
any issues that are important to one or more of the tags, just acknowledging the tags and verbally
supporting pride in them. That's why even a bunch of people possessing the tags didn't support
her: there was nothing there for them, or, indeed, anyone else outside the financial and imperial
elite.
Abernathy and King were from black churches. The rest of the leadership came from the street
or universities. King's lament about the "white moderate" was code for the "black church." Ministers
were glorified house slaves and liked the big houses. Jim Crow worked for black ministers. If
better of blacks moved to white neighborhoods and more importantly white churches, who would put
money in the collection plate?
With the exception of Jackson when he showed up (he was young), those young black men who were
always around King were Communists and atheists. They didn't broadcast it for obvious reasons,
but a guy like Malcolm X was skeptical of King for real reasons.
Jackson was important because he forced the black churches to get with the program. If there
was a minister successor to King, the congregants might ask questions about their own ministers.
The black church hated hippies, but the real civil rights leadership didn't.
The diagnosis is mostly correct. But omits the role class bigotry and affluenza with attendant
celebrity culture and pursuit of prestige plays. Thus the prognosis and protocol go astray.
The wealthy and the politicians don't care about you/us. They care about maintaining any fiction
that allows them to keep acquiring. Trump is not the problem; Mercer"s values are The Problem.
Trump is the PERFECT reality TV/celebrity fantasy creature to keep the twisted Mercer chariot's
wheels turning.
Bernie was NOT The Answer. Putting on a mask of concern does not take away the sorrows of empire.
As long as the blatant US militarism and imperialism continues we cannot unite the working class.
Everything it needs to flourish continues - mass incarceration, join the military or stay in the
ghetto, graft and corruption of military/industrial/media complex, no respect for other cultures
being swarmed, consumerism.
Bernie picked up Occupy"s talking points (good plagarist!) but left the hurdle of recognizing
plutocracy the same as Occupy did. Plutocracy is democratic as well it just usnt!
What is there to show for 200 million in donations to overcome the Third Way? A new minuet
with the crushing DemocRATic "party".
The war has come home. First step is to admit it. Consistency in VALUES is the left"s primary
directive. There needs to be funerals for both parties not more illusion.
The tax break "fight" will be hilarious. Another example of how our rulers cannot solve a single
problem .
The jobs plan: more prison guards, border agents, munitions makers, soldiers, cops, various
bodyguards for the rich and the other useful mandarins to the affluenza-stricken is set in stone.
You cannot heal a chronic disease without seeing the entirety of its degenerative properties.
We're fighting a nasty virus.
Bernie did not plagiarize Occupy. He had been saying the same things in Vermont for 25 years,
but saying them in ways that lots of very various people connected with.
20 years ago, Bernie lawn signs used to be run over by irate people who knew he was a no-good
dirty Socialist. But because he has consistently framed issues in terms of ordinary people's lives
and because he has always been absolutely honest and forthright, most of those people who flattened
the signs now like and respect him and vote for him. They also pay attention to issues that only
no-good dirty Socialists do in most other states.
"a revived protection of labor's right to unionize"
Do this and everything else will follow - don't do this and nothing will ever follow.
"It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims."
Don't depend on right or left parties. Depend on yourselves: rebuild American union density
(6% unions in private economy analogous to 20/10 BP - starves every other healthy process). Both
parties will come begging to your door.
Here's how to "do this":
[snip]
80 years ago Congress forgot to put criminal enforcement in the NLRA(a). Had union busting been
a felony all along we would be like Germany today. Maybe at some point our progressives might
note that collective bargaining is the T-Rex in the room - or the missing T-Rex .
The money is there for $20 jobs. 49 years - and half the per capita income ago - the fed min
wage was $11. Since then the bottom 45% went from 20% overall income share to 10% - while the
top 1% went from 10% to 20%.
How to get it - how to get collective bargaining set up? States can make union busting a felony
without worrying about so-called federal preemption:
+ a state law sanctioning wholesalers, for instance, using market power to block small retail
establishments from combining their bargaining power could be the same one that makes union busting
a felony - overlap like min wage laws - especially since on crim penalties the fed has left nothing
to overlap since 1935;
+ First Amendment right to collectively bargain cannot be forced by the fed down (the current)
impassable road. Double ditto for FedEx employees who have to hurdle the whole-nation-at-once
certification election barrier;
+ for contrast, examples of state infringement on federal preemption might be a state finding
of union busting leading to a mandate for an election under the fed setup - or any state certification
setup for labor already covered by NLRA(a) or RLA(a). (Okay for excluded farm workers.)
[snip]
Michael Hudson makes great points but I am still wrestling with his (and others) push back
against so-called identity politics as it pertains to this perception of it splintering or at
least limiting the Democratic party. The Dems are most certainly a party committed to the ideals
of neoliberalism and corporatism. They did not lose this election based on "Russian hacking/emails"
and other trite nonsense.
Nor did they lose it by appealing to so-called identity politics or
tribalism. If the Left is going to move forward effectively it can't pretend we are merely having
class and by extension economic arguments. Race is the thru line and has consistently been since
the countries inception. Many things cited i.e. the New Deal, pro-Union policy, etc are standard
bearers on the Left but have also been rife with racist treatment of potential Black and Latino
allies. Why would that be ignored if we are only having conversations of class? Class does not
explain redlining which has economic and social implications.
These are complex issues, but they are not as class focused (solely) as many on the Left would
like to believe. Our failure to speak honestly and openly about it and critique capitalism and
its most malevolent (and seductive form neoliberalism) as being tied to the practice and idea
of white supremacy is why we ultimately will find it more and more challenging to wage a successful
countermovement against it.
Wow. Ok, so since racial bias was written into past economic policy that was intended to address
class issues, addressing class based inequality should just be abandoned?
How about just demanding policy that addresses class based inequality simply be written without
the racial bias? Why is this so difficult to get into the minds of liberals? This is not that
hard.
The refusal to recognize is a nice idea. I've often thought of late that Democrats, or at least
the Left, should refuse to recognize Trump's horrible cabinet appointments, even if the delegitimizing
effect is minimal. Just referring to these people at citizen or whatever rather than secretary
would be some small repudiation, at least.
There's a very long and comprehensive
musing on politics and public dialog at slatestarcodex. My takeaway: if your dialog is weaponized,
if you consider your mission to be "How do I force these people to admit that I'm right?" then
you'll keep seeing the same results we see now.
Been saying #TrumpIsObamaLegacy since early morning in November. Yves was WAAAAY ahead of the curve back in late 08 calling that out.
The Obama part of maintaining the looting of society status quo.
The point about Trump being the US Yeltsin is one very much worth considering, if only because
Russia, after much degradation and also suffering, has managed to begin to overcome those shameful
and depressing times. May we do so also.
Great summary, forwarding to friends.
As commented above, progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well. Neolib always willing
to boost funding for any candidate of any party if primary challenged by a progressive. Takeover
of state party machinery e.g. Ca did have some success, but pretty slow.
Third party seems both the only way and imo more doable than many think unlike in the past,
electorate is now desperate for real change. Third party impossible until probable. IMO we are
now at just such a point.
But neolib will fight tooth and nail to keep a progressive party off the ballot....
progressive candidates that Bernie backed did not do well.
I'm not so sure about that. Here's the list of candidates backed by Our Revolution (not precisely
the same as Sanders, but close). I didn't bother to do an exact count, but it appears that the
winners exceed the losers by about 6 to 5.
The Republicans control a majority of the state legislatures, governorships, and both houses
of Congress. Compared to the establishment Democratic Party as a whole, the Sanders people in
Our Revolution are doing pretty well. A new party isn't required; we just need some new people
in charge of the Democratic Party. Heck, a lot of the same people could remain in charge, so long
as they change their attitudes and stop obeying Wall Street and the billionaires.
Excellent piece. Americans have forgotten that the things they took for granted (40 hour week,
humane working conditions, employer provided benefits etc.) were gained by the blood, sweat and
tears of their forebears.
Today, as the attack on what's left
of employee protections and benefits is ramped up, people are alienated from one another and encouraged
to channel their despair and anger into blaming scapegoats or invest their energy stoking paranoid
delusions about the illuminati and Russian agents. If that gets boring there's always alcohol
and heroin to take the edge off.
The left has a momentous job – it has to convince people to give a shit and think of their
fate as intertwined with others in a similar position. After decades of neoliberal economics empathy
and giving a shit are associated with weakness and losers in many people's minds. Nobody wants
to give a shit about anyone outside their preferred identity group or groups but everyone wants,
demands , others give a shit about them.
It's almost comical how self-defeating and illogical people can be.
My belief is that Trump (and his kin) is likely the 'apotheosis' of neoliberalism or, as is
far less likely, he (or they) might pleasantly surprise us.
Like Brexit in the UK, I for one, hopefully not mistakenly, mark this anti establishment ascendency
as the beginning of the end of neoliberal economics rather than a further ringing endorsement
ie I fully accept things may have to get worse before they get better.
People mostly vote to maintain a status quo they believe serves or may serve their interests
in the future or, increasingly in the case of ever plausible (to the trusting and naďve) neoliberalism,
out of misplaced hope, desperation, exasperation or understandable fear of the unknown.
The Clintons, the Obamas, the Blairs, possibly the Macrons, the Ruttes, even the Merkels of
this world are wolves in sheep's clothing. They have come to represent, for increasing numbers,
little better than managed decline in apparently safe hands, conducted in plain sight, in the
ever narrower interests of the few.
Unfortunately events are conspiring to demand the once virtuous, now vicious, circle be broken
by fair means or foul.
It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going
to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance
is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party
from Its Donor Class.
I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design
a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic
growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this
neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue
squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.
I couldn't have said it better myself. Its encouraging to know that minds like Hudson's are
thinking in these terms.
Regarding the subject line of the article. I'd say that the Democratic Party has been the "paid
loyal opposition" for quite a while. . . meaning they are paid to loose. Given the party's ties
to Wall Street and Big Pharma it's pretty clear they mostly work for the same folks that own "mainstream"
Republicans so their apparent fecklessness and inability to mount ANY sort of effective opposition,
even when they are in the majority, shouldn't be any surprise.
The question might more appropriately
be can EITHER party survive Trump? Frankly, one can only HOPE that the current version of the
Democratic Party DOES go the way of the Whig Party. I can only hope that the Republicans stay
as gridlocked as they currently are by the stupid faction of their party.
"... Let's compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72. Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, ..."
"... The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough. We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity. An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance. ..."
"... Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all "rules"! ..."
When it comes to Wall Street buying our democracy, you just need to follow the money. Let's
compare donations from people who work at Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Wells
Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Hillary Clinton may have Wall Street, But Bernie has YOU! Bernie has received more than 1.5
million contributions from folks like you, at an average of $30 each.
To be fair, don't you think we should count donations for this election cycle for Clinton?
Y'know,
she was the Senator from New York.
pgl -> EMichael,
Some people think anyone from New York is in bed with Wall Street. Trust me on this one - not
everyone here in Brooklyn is in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket. Of course those alleged liberals JohnH
uses as his sources (e.g. William Cohan) are in Jamie Dimon's hip pocket.
EMichael -> pgl,
I hate things like this. No honesty whatsoever. This cycle.
The total for Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan and Bank of America
is $326,000.
That leaves Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to contribute $169,000.
EMichael -> RGC,
I stand corrected, somewhat.
Let me know how much comes from those organizations PACs.
reason said,
The false promise of meritocracy was most disappointing. It basically said that meritocracy
is hard to do, but never evaluates whether it is the right thing to do. Hint - it isn't enough.
We need to worry about (relative) equality of outcome not just (relative) equality of opportunity.
An equal chance to starve is still an equal chance.
ilsm -> reason,
Making economies games is how you continued rigged distribution apparatus. Question all
"rules"!
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
How
exactly did Mayor Pete end up in the Navy? It's interesting for a man who touts his service so readily, that he's
reticent to discuss it in any detail. This is no doubt related to the classified nature of his work, but it's
probably also related to how he ended up in the Navy in the first place.
Buttigieg's
endorsements likewise raise questions. Why, for example, does a who's who of spooks and coup plotters want the
mayor of a small Indiana city to be the leader of the free world?
Gabbard should run as an
independent if she doesn't get the nomination. I believe Gabbard said she won't but I hope she
change her mind.
Since my background is
strictly civilian, I cannot state . . . anything. But perhaps I can ask, could we refer to this
as " foam-rubber valor"? Or "cardboard-replica valor"?
Samuel D. Finkelstein
Sam Finkelstein is a political activist, writer, and student at Seton Hall Law School. Follow him on Twitter
at
@Cancel_Sam
.
Share
Tweet
Filed under:
2020
,
2020 presidential
campaign
,
BlackRock
,
Brazil
,
CIA
,
coup
,
David S. Cohen
,
Democratic Party
,
Democrats
,
DNC
,
intelligence community
,
inter american
development bank
,
Julie T.
Katzman
,
Karen Mathiasen
,
Mayor Pete
,
Nicolas Maduro
,
NSC
,
Pete Buttigieg
,
presidential primary
,
regime change
,
us politics
,
Venezuela
,
world bank
