Demexit: Clinton Democrats as the Party of Financial Oligarchy and the Party of War
Abandonment of "neoliberalized" by Clinton Democratic party by working class and lower middle class: After twenty year of betrayal of working class Democrats face the consequences of their "Clinton
strategy" in full force. So they resorted to use of intelligence agencies and neo-McCarthyism to stay in power, effectively
becoming CIA-democrats.
When it comes to Wall Street buying Democratic Patry 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 in 2016 elections
Hillary Clinton, has
received $495,503.60 from people who work on Wall Street Bernie
Sanders, has received only $17,107.72.
Radio Sputnik's Loud and Clear spoke with Daniel Lazare,
a journalist and author of three books, "The Frozen Republic," "The Velvet Coup" and "America's
Undeclared War," about what we can expect from Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation
in 2019, its third year of operation.
"A House committee can keep the ball rolling indefinitely," Lazare noted. "Nothing solid has
turned up about collusion in the Russiagate story. Yet, the story keeps going and going, a new
tidbit is put out every week, and so the scandal keeps somehow perpetuating itself. And even
though there's less and less of substance coming out, so I expect that'll be the pattern for
the next few months, and I expect that the Democrats will revv this whole process up to make it
sort of seem as if there really is an avalanche of information crashing down on Trump when
there really isn't."
investigation, noting it had produced little to nothing of substance in support of the
thesis justifying its existence: that Russia either colluded with the Trump campaign or
conspired to interfere in the US election to tilt it in Trump's favor.
Indeed,
report after
report on the data that has been provided to Congress by tech giants like Facebook, Twitter
and Google show an underwhelming performance by any would-be Russian actors. In contrast to the
apocalyptic claims by Democrats and the mainstream media about the massive disinformation
offensive waged by Russian actors, the websites, social media accounts, post reach and ad money
associated with "Russians" is always
dwarfed by the equivalent actions of the Trump campaign and the campaign of its rival in
the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton, along with their throngs of supporters
across the US corporate world, both of whom sunk hundreds of millions into winning the
social media game.
Among the chief motivations for Democrats going into 2019 is that "Democrats are now the
party of war," Lazare said, noting that Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi called Trump's
prospective withdrawal from Syria a "Christmas gift to ISIS [Daesh]."
"This is the raison d'etre for Russiagate: they're trying to maneuver Trump into
hostilities with Russia, China, North Korea, etc. I mean, this is foreign policy by
subterfuge it's about keeping 2,000 troops in Syria as well, and getting Americans' heads
blown off in Afghanistan, all of which the Democrats want to do. The whole thing is backroom
government of the worst kind."
"... My life story is very similar to yours -- blue collar upbringing, worked graveyard shift in factories during college, made it all the way to Wall Street --- and I completely agree with you. The Democratic Party might have been the party of the working-class families many years ago, but it's absolutely not that now. ..."
"... The most interesting aspect of party realignment in almost every country is the movement of the Anglo-Saxon elites to the parties of leftist authoritarianism, whether in the UK, US, or Canada. Since elites have always had “fluid” political values, one can only assume that they see tyranny as our destiny. ..."
I am a retired attorney but was reared in a blue collar home. I have not lost the values I
learned where my father returned home from work six days a week as a railroad brakeman.
Thanks to my pre-law curriculum I am well read in history and literature. My undergrad major
was history and my minor literature.
Having acquired a love for reading in college I have read both all my life but it has not
changed me from the son my father reared. I worked construction and general labor jobs to
help pay for college and law school and am very aware of how hard those jobs are and I have a
healthy respect for the men and women who provide us with the essential goods and services we
all need.
I therefore have no use for attitude of most on the left and some on the right who have no
respect for average working people and small business.
It seems many in Britain have the same outlook. My Dad was very proud I became a lawyer
but I am just as proud of the job he performed to give me that chance.
SUBSCRIBER 5 hours ago
I therefore have no use for attitude of most on the left and some on the right who have no
respect for average working people and small business. It seems many in Britain have the same
outlook.
My life story is very similar to yours -- blue collar upbringing, worked graveyard
shift in factories during college, made it all the way to Wall Street --- and I completely
agree with you. The Democratic Party might have been the party of the working-class families
many years ago, but it's absolutely not that now.
SUBSCRIBER 4 hours ago
Most democrat leaders are career politicians like Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Schumer. They
never had a real job and paid any taxes. They love raising taxes for big government and dole
out. Can’t wait for midterm election and take back the congress. R
SUBSCRIBER 14 hours ago
The most interesting aspect of party realignment in almost every country is the
movement of the Anglo-Saxon elites to the parties of leftist authoritarianism, whether in the
UK, US, or Canada. Since elites have always had “fluid” political values,
one can only assume that they see tyranny as our destiny.
"... I doubt this narrative. I think that, much like the radicalization of conservatives, the radicalization of liberals is driven by the development of a media bubble. Not by real life experience, but rather by the lens through which that real life experience is framed by people mostly disconnected from the real life experiences they claim to have had. ..."
“No one under 65 today was an adult during the chaotic years of the
1970s and early 1980s. â€
Well, yes. It’s possible to mutter that old saw about financial
markets. That the disaster will only repeat itself when the people who remember it last time
around have just retired.
So, the joys of strong union power â€" just as a simple example â€"
are coming back into fashion as those Brits who recall 3 day weeks, perhaps that glorious
year of 1976 when the country was as equal as it ever has been, are fading over the hill.
It is the same point you’re making about generations and formative
experiences of course, just leading to a slightly different conclusion.
Soon enough those who saw, first hand, the disaster of Gosplan style government direction
of the economy will also be passing out of that sphere of political influence. Which is a joy
to look forward to, isn’t it?
Since at least 1960, it seems to me, generations’ self-image follows a
narrative about teenagers raised in families are like, how education transforms them, and how
“real life†sorts them. This narrative shifts as generational
change occurs, and both get more complicated, to the point where both seem essentially
rhetorical to me now. Though that may just be a middle aged reaction on the order of
“get off my lawn†(being just a few years too old to see truth
as linguistic, myselfâ€"it will be interesting to see how long this idea retains
its hold as “left†after earnest and striving undergraduates
are taught it over several decadesâ€"the reverse, maybe, of the leftward drift of
support for globalization and neoliberalism).
@1BTW, I am 65 and entered the workforce in 1978, almost identical to your case. So I
should have caught my own slipup
@11 I plan to make that point. We need to pay attention to what went wrong in the 1960s
and 1970s, as well as why the neoliberal response was such a disaster. Aim is to avoid the
cycles of error you mention
Coincidentally at Stumbling and Mumbling
On generational difference
…
Napoleon, then, was correct: “to understand the man you have to know what
was happening in the world when he was twenty.†Napoleon
…
Of course, not all 50-somethings share the formative experiences of my youth. David Cameron
and Boris Johnson are around my age. But the 1980 recession looked very different from Eton
than it did from a single-parent terraced house in inner-city Leicester.
Napoleon’s point still holds. Class matters, as well as age.
We could extend the point. One reason for the generational divide over Brexit is that
older folk who came to maturity before we joined the EU have the impression that we can do
well outside the EU, whilst younger folk who have known nothing but EU membership see no
reason to rock the boat.
I doubt this narrative. I think that, much like the radicalization of conservatives,
the radicalization of liberals is driven by the development of a media bubble. Not by real
life experience, but rather by the lens through which that real life experience is framed by
people mostly disconnected from the real life experiences they claim to have had.
@nobody9
â€By the time younger Democrats take control of the party, the GOP will have
seized enough control over the political process to keep the Democratic Party out of power
permanentlyâ€.
One interesting thing about the Reagan/Thatcher era “shift to the
right†in both the UK and the US is that it didn’t
involve a comparable shift in voter beliefs. (In contrast, I agree with JQ and most of the
commentators that the current shift to the left does involve dead righties being replaced by
18-year old lefties)
In the US, the Southern Strategy wasn’t about turning left-wing voters
into conservative voters â€" it was about turning southern conservative Democrats
who were already comfortable voting for Jesse Helms and Strom Thurmond into southern
conservative Republicans. The centre-right + right was always a majority in America, the
Republicans just needed to hold their coalition together, which Nixon and later Reagan
did.
In the UK, Thatcher (and Major, although he did it on a higher-than-usual turnout) won
with the same 42-44% of the vote that the Conservatives had been losing with in the
1960’s â€" what changed is that the British left became (and
still are) completely unable to hold their coalition together.
The increasing rapidity of technological, economic and social change since the Industrial
Revolution 250 years ago has exhibited generational concomitants due to new careers
beginning, adaptations & adoptions, successes and victimizations. The mass media has
identified this generational process at least since the 1920’s Jazz Age.
What hasn’t changed since then are the faulty institutional dynamics of
finance capitalism and its deathdance with the two major blankslate alternatives, communism
and fascism. This became evermore apparent with the recent financial crash and increasing
inequality in the developed countries. Now a thousand podcasts, YouTubes and substacks are
exploding with gaseous reiterations, reinventing the wheel from all sides. But the
comprehensive synthesis of political economy has not much improved beyond the early
institutionalists, in particular WC Mitchell & JR Commons.
We are going to need BOTH markets and social welfare institutions. Markets for the
freedoms of choice and innovation, and for the dynamics of self-interest, profit,
competition, allocation and substitution. Social welfare institutions for the freedoms of
time and attention, and for the dynamics of reciprocity, altruism, risk protection, social
growth and ecological preservation. BOTH markets and social welfare institutions save costs
thus cause growth in different, complementary and necessary ways. BOTH have natural and
endemic failures of different kinds; they both need fixing all the time.
Political parties that reject neoliberalism (defined as “everything
should be marketized;†“the market is the best information
processorâ€) and wrap their heads around the necessary co-equal combination of
markets and social welfare institutions â€" and reiterate the need for BOTH in
each and every sentence of rhetoric they utter â€" are the ones that will
suceed.
The two Pew reports below from a few years ago do a nice job illustrating the differences
between generation/cohort effects and time effects. For instance, their graph of attitudes
towards same-sex marriage divided by generation illustrates nicely how overall variation in
attitudes are about equally due to generational differences and attitude change within
generations over time. Marijuana, by contrast, is less generational and more something that
changed equally for everyone over time.
And on the other hand, religiosity, marriage, and to a lesser degree partisan affiliation,
appear to be more generational (ie, fixed for an individual and more a function of when they
were born) and less likely to change within an individual over time.
So “ largely a matter of generational replacementâ€
is probably putting it too strongly. Depending on the attitude, changes in ideological
distributions over time may be due to different mixes of generational replacement and
within-generation attitudinal shifts.
I’m at the tail of the boomers, born in 1960. Here’s
my story.
I’ve never identified with the boomers at all. Their fantastic
achievements and activism were already pretty stale in my youth, though it was clear that
much fun was had. I grew up with stagflation, the (1st) Arab oil crisis, gas lines, the Iran
hostage debacle, and de-industrialization, all of which combined to give us Reagan and the
modern GOP, whose policies have made almost everything worse since then.
From my perch, Viet Nam is not what killed American prosperity of the post WW2 era, it was
the toxic brew of a changing oil-baswed economy crashing into the toxic situation in the
Middle East. This was the fulcrum that broke that system. We’ve been stuck
in that zone ever since. Christ, Biden is gonna pull the troops out of Iraq AFTER 20 YEARS
and it’s controversial? We are still living in that world that I grew up
in, and it’s not the Summer of Love. It sucks.
Needless to say, I have no love for any of our “Friends†in
the Middle East, not the Israelis, not the Saudis, not the Egyptians.
We’ve been played by all of them and I’m sad for all
the death and destruction America has been party to there. I feel that for most of my adult
life our country has lived in a tortured state with these people. It’s
been really harmful to the USA. I know we don’t have clean hands
â€" look at what we’ve done to Iran â€"
it’s not a surprise they don’t like us. I feel like we
just need to quit them all, but we can’t.
I’m not sure how that fits into the leftward shift. But the times
really do shape who you are and the things that happen when you are a young adult are very
strongly remembered indeed.
Regarding your footnote, the problem seems to be the human tendency to focus more on how
you get ahead inside your organisation rather than on how to get the entire organisation
ahead. A politician may not actually care about the threat that their party will never again
win an election as long as the donations keep flowing and a cushy corporate contract beckons
after leaving office.
derrida derider,
Not sure if it is that US-centric. Although individual elections and faces differ, the
fact is that deregulation, privatisation, and wage suppression have wreaked havoc across most
of the “Western†countries since c. late 70s/early 80s.
I am a 44 year old German living in Australia, and I cannot remember things ever getting
better since I become politically aware, new shiny gadgets aside. Increasing precarisation of
the workforce is a constant background noise, interest rates tend towards zero as wealth is
unable to find any profitable investment beyond buying commodities and infalting the next
bubble, and here in Australia the gulf between large numbers of people owning 2-3 investment
properties and even larger numbers of people being increasingly unable to even afford rent is
painfully obvious. I have never seen any reason to become more economically conservative than
I was as a teenager, although supposedly that is the fate of all who mature.
I am also fairly certain that the majority view in my and younger generations is far to
the left of political mainstream, whose position is largely informed by well-off, socially
conservative, and reliably voting retirees. The question is if generational shits will
ultimately matter, because the wealth of those retirees will ultimately be inherited by the
next lot.
Jonathan Monroe,
I was shocked recently to realise that Thatcher had only ever got that little of the vote,
given how fundamentally she then went on to change UK politics. The UK electoral system
really is bananas, but not all other countries have that excuse. Pretty much all
“Western†democracies currently face the problem of a block of
c. 40% people voting the traditional centre-right party no matter what it does, even if it
nominates a bag of potatoes as its top candidate or has been blatantly captured by the far
right. Mass media in the hands of the modern Hugenbergs helps with that, and not sure what
anyone can do about it.
Pretty much all “Western†democracies currently face the
problem of a block of c. 40% people voting the traditional centre-right party no matter
what it does …
Hmm. Which countries do you count as Western democracies, which do you count as the
traditional centre-right parties, and how much checking of the figures have you done? I
don’t know, but let’s look at some data without knowing
the answers to those questions.
In Japan, the Jiyu Minshuto consistently receives under 40% of the PR votes; in the
plurality voting for single-member constituencies, it generally gets over 40% of the vote but
fell below that mark in 1996 and again in 2009.
In Germany, the combined vote for the ‘Union’
parties (CDU and CSU) has fluctuated around the 40% mark: often over it, sometimes somewhat
under it.
In the UK, the vote for the Conservatives was well below 40% in 1997, 2001, 2005, 2010,
and 2015.
In French presidential elections, the variously named Gaullist predecessors of the
Republicans (as they are currently known) have not scored anywhere close to 40% of the vote
in the first round since 1969 (but could naturally do better in the second-round
two-candidate run-off, if they got into it). In legislative elections they have not been
close to 40% in the first round since 1968, and in the second round have been well under that
mark more often than over it.
In Italy, no single party has reached 40% of the vote since 1958.
In Spain, the PP has exceeded 40% of the vote only in 2000 and in 2011 and has often been
well under that mark.
In Canada, there was a time when the Conservatives might get over 40% of the vote, but in
recent elections they have fluctuated between slightly under 40% and well under 40%.
In Australia, the combination of the Liberals and the Nationals consistently receives over
40% of the primary vote (falling a fraction below that in 1998).
In the Netherlands, none of the existing parties has ever received over 40% of the vote;
none has received over 30% of the vote since 1989.
Well, that’s nine examples: is that a fair test of the
generalisation?
John you write, “The leftward shift of the Democratic party is largely
a matter of generational replacement.â€
I think it is because the longer-than-a-generation arc of market fundamentalism, also
known as neoliberalism (defined once again as: “everything should be
marketized†because of the delusion that “the market is the
best information processorâ€) has temporarily declined as the reigning ideological
frontispiece of mainstream economics. “Temporarily†because
it’s not dead yet, hoping for a revival just as soon as there is a
generation that isn’t suffering the aftermath of the financial crash and
can turn themselves behaviorally indifferent to inequality.
Economists seem to be touchy on the subject of their previous surrender but there is no
denying that the Hayekian bafflegab, ushered along by heaping doses of Milton
Friedman’s disingenuous cheerleading, became the public face of economics
on the newspaper editorial pages and network TV commentators starting in the
1970’s, and John Kenneth Galbraith showed that any economist who opposed
it would become a lonely quaint ineffective dismissed voice. Consequently more than a few of
the 1960’s peace & love generation were soon primed to agree with
“Get government off our backs!,†Reagan’s
1980 campaign slogan, and in the 1990’s maybe 3/4s of the Democrats
climbed aboard under Clinton.
The story, taken only that far, already shows our endemic conditions of: 1. generational
change, 2. every generation’s limits in attention and cognition, and 3.
malpractice and intellectual incompetence in the public presentational side of the economics
community.
Today we must add: 4. a rightwing wrongfooted by the financial crash, thus 5. opening a
public window for leftward correction no matter the age of the leftward advocate, but
â€"and this is a very big butâ€" 6. we have a new, further and perhaps
permanent loss of authoritative legitimacy in the social media cacophony. Leftward gains
could easily be lost in the next calamity, overwhelmed again by disingenuity.
So number 6 puzzles me. A better economics might emerge, if the mainstream profession
weren’t tribalists and if they could find a comprehensive intellectual
framwork. Two big ifs. But then, how will ANY attempt at creating factual authority fare in
this new media age? Maybe the internet and social media now command a general confusion
solely because they are new and shiny, but soon they will be regarded generally as just
another tarnished old thing, mostly full of repetition and misleading information, sound and
fury signifying nothing. Or maybe the siloed tribes will harden into heatseeking political
parties, so that the final internet information authority is actually decided in the election
voting booth.
In a democracy new leaders must arise from the demos, a fact the 1960’s
protestors largely derided and forgot. Now the Millennials are frustrated and overwhemed: the
economy hurts them and they need to find solid facts in an information cesspool. At the same
time it may be that social media returns us all to the condition that authority in the
political economy is simply determined by orators, a fact the ancients believed.
Jonathan 22 makes an interesting point:
„ In the UK, Thatcher (and Major, although he did it on a higher-than-usual
turnout) won with the same 42-44% of the vote that the Conservatives had been losing with in
the 1960’s â€" what changed is that the British left became
(and still are) completely unable to hold their coalition together.“
A similar observation holds for Germany. The Christian Democrats, the party of Adenauer
and Kohl, received between 44 and 49% of votes between 1961 and 1990, without much
fluctuation. In that period, the government changed from center-right to social-liberal
(1969) back to center-right (1982) solely in response to the small liberal party FDP changing
sides. The 1998 election, won decisively by an SPD-Greens alliance led by Schroeder, was the
first time that an incumbent Federal government was unseated by an election defeat.
(Many readers will recall that Schroeder’s government was a disappointment
for the left.)
This a great discussion, John! Some of this may be repetitious, but:
1) The rise of the GOP was a matter of a major Democratic bloc â€" White
Southerners â€" shifting parties, followed by a shift of those who were
‘anti-anti-racist’. It clearly was in full swing as of
1964, when a white South which had been Dem since there was a Dem party changed.
2) Generations are of course crap. I was born in 1960, so an theoretical a (white male)
Boomer. My teens were the mid-late 1970’s, so more in common with early
Gen X. If I had graduated from college on time, I’d have graduated in
1982, into the teeth of the worst slump since the Great Depression in the USA. I was in the
Army at the time, and the change in recruits was dramatic, due to economics.
3) N, thank you for the Pew reports.
4) rdbrown, I think that another reason for the generational differences about Brexit is
that the older are losing not that much, while the youth have had the next 60 years of their
lives truncated. They went from being able to live, work, marry and retire in 28 countries to
1.
5) I’m amazed at the diffidence of the older Dem establishment, since
the GOP’s actions cut very directly at their power. If it were old-style
politics, the other party directly cutting out one’s own voters would be
recognized as the direct threat that it was.
6) Tim, have you not noticed that yelling ‘Commie! Go back to
Russia!’ isn’t working as well?
Additionally, the idea that financial crashes appear when the people who lived through
them as adults retire doesn’t match the recent data we have in the
USA.
In the USA we had the Savings and Loan crisis, the Dot-com crash and the Great Financial
Crash all in just over 20 years. There was some learning; I’ve heard that
Texas rel-regulated some real estate matters after the S&L crash, and that this helped in
’08.
But it looks like a general tendency of cash-flush unregulated markets seeking higher
gains, when there are several layers of actors involved.
In a democracy, new leaders arise by inheritance. One of the currently most
“powerful†politicians is Joe Manchin. Manchin is from an old
political family. His uncle was State Treasurer, for one thing. He was a part of an
embarrassing large loss of state funds in obscure deals in finance (along with a fellow named
Margolin.) The old NatWest scandal from Margaret Thatcher days played a role.
The other WV senator is the daughter of a governor, Arch Moore. Moore was merely indicted,
which doesn’t count. The story of thousands of dollars in cash in
Moore’s desk drawer I suppose merely proves he was a successful man, with
agency. (Agency is the summum bonum in an astonishingly wide array of value systems,
including some that deem themselves very woke indeed.)
Descending to the depths, the House of Representatives, one of WV’s is
a Carol Miller. She is the daughter of an Ohio politician, one time Representative himself.
She is doubly qualified by being married to the owner of a large automobile dealership. Out
of state people moving in and getting elected is a noble tradition. Another WV
representative, Alex Mooney, began his career running in Maryland. Current Attorney General
Patrick Morrissey began by running in New Jersey. Of course, the famous example is Jay
Rockefeller who moved to WV instead of Arkansas, or maybe Puerto Rico.
Formation of a new democratic leadership is also achieved by selection by an informal
council of the natural leaders (as they see it,) who groom candidates. This can be an
intensive process, like the men who put Reagan on his path. Special relationships with the
some of the largest owners in any given state, like the Waltons and Perdues in Arkansas can
be helpful.
Even a healthy friendship with, say, Coca-Cola, can matter too. Selection by the wealthy
of course can be more market oriented, conducted under auspices of political professionals
with mailing lists who use them in primary campaigns.
And of course, the advertising purchased by the wealthy has a great deal of influence on
what’s deemed suitable, regardless of mere ratings or readership. Thus, a
Trump is suitable for playing up as a contender, while a Sanders, is not.
Marxist fears of being coopted or fears of a drug test don’t seem to be
so very important to me. A democracy is one where property is protected, which means that
those who own property are protected against a mere numerical majority (as John Calhoun
called it.)
“Soon enough those who saw, first hand, the disaster of Gosplan style
government direction of the economy will also be passing out of that sphere of political
influence.â€
So will people who are aware that that is a possible style of government, much less a
“left†one. I’m not aware of any political
movement that’s pushing for anything remotely like that.
Together they allude to the fact that many of the best political and sociological minds
forged in the 1960’s shunned democracy’s necessary
requirement that they enter electoral politics to become leaders.
I’m curious to know whom you’re thinking of.
But even far beyond the intellectuals, the counterculture’s explosive
cleavage with the previous status quo included frequent insistence that voting is
irrelevant, …
There I feel as if I get you. I’ve encountered instances of people
insisting that voting is irrelevant, and I agree with your implicit evaluation. Participation
in electoral politics is not the only effective technique for achieving change, but
it’s certainly one of them, and in-principle rejection of it is a
mistake.
We definitely have to separate generational zeitgeist from emerging power blocs and from
actual demographic aggregations. Much of the recent “wokenessâ€
is actually people finally digesting ideas from the 80s. Judith Butler and Michel Foucault
are not millennials but many of us had to read them for school.
The people who were opposing the 70s-90s neo-liberal turn obviously lost the political
battles of their day, but became hip with the people who taught the next generation. The
modern right wing meme of “cultural marxism†is based on the
idea that the “anti-establishment†thinkers of old have become
the new dogma and ushered in a sort of cultural revolution toward intersectional identity and
“safe spaces†and away from cold scientific reason.
This seems like an obvious overreaction, but its just a link in the chain of them. The
post-stucturalists, post-modernists, and extreme cultural relativists were overreacting to
the cold bloodedness of the economic rationalists, behaviorists etc. who were overreacting to
what they saw as misguided bleeding heart reformism. You can draw the line back from there
with each genation of ideas sowing the seeds of its own antithesis.
It may be best to think of generational coalitions, rather political generations. Anyone
at any age can shift political parties and (less frequently) ideologies, but the genealogy of
ideas helps influence when a political generation “comes of
age.†New ideas gestate in the background for years or decades, but only
“take off†when existing ideologies lose their functionality
(granting legitimacy to political leaders) and leave a power vacuum. “New
ideas†can actually be quite old as long as they seem novel to enough voters,
which is why old-young Bernie Sanders style coalitions may actually be the standard for
birthing “new†ideologies that only comes of age when their
old standard bearers have moved on.
Tim: “The contention is that the same financial market problem recurs
when the people who worked through the last iteration of that same mistake retire.
It’s entirely agreed that there are many possible mistakes to make.
Financial markets will continue to make new ones. It’s that the old ones
only come back when the institutional knowledge has retired.
S&L, dotcom and GFC are all different mistakes.â€
The S&L crisis was blown up by people making loans on properties with inflated prices,
on the grounds that they could flip those loans.
Same for the Dotcom crash, but based on stocks with massive prices and no profits. Same
for the Great Financial Crash.
J-D #43: “curious to know whom you’re thinking
of.â€
Specifically antiwar organizers from the 1960’s whom I came to know
personally in the late 1970’s. They were intellectually brilliant;
completely practical & dedicated â€" yet eschewed personal involvement in
electoral politics. To be sure there are some famous names from the civil rights &
antiwar movements who later became nationally-known politicians. But it seems to me that on
the whole the showings from this cohort were rather weak in the
’70’s, helping to create a vacuum into which flowed the
Mont Pelerin and other rightwing thinktank propaganda, then into which flooded the
Reaganites.
Looks like an attempt to redirect anger against neolibel elite into racial antimosity does nto work well. A least for this UNZ commentariant.
They are not folled by woke nonsense.
In any case it looks like the USA is a divided country.
Never underestimate the insanity of Zionists, be they full Jews, half-Jews, or soulless Jew-wannabes like Joe "I am a Zionist"
Biden. We're in unprecedented territory -- an empire run by Zoglodytes. They'll run it into the ground sooner or later, but just
how quickly and at what cost to the humanity is anyone's guess.
Of course, none of it would be possible but for the Anglo-elites doing deals with ((bankers)) in search of post-Imperial easy-living.
In fact, that's probably what caused WW2.
Today, gangsters from every creed, race and religion want in on the Zionist action, and happily signal to their criminal lodestar
that they're "all in" with virtually unlimited aid, wars and diplomatic support in Congress for the Jewish state.
The New World Order. How do you like it, whitey? You just had to listen to the gold-plated promises of the Jew confidence man.
The streets will be paved with gold, right?
If you're white and in the armed forces/police, you're a moron.
The fact is Americans are nothing but the Jew's bitch, killing for them. There isn't one American, who's defended their country,
well, you'll have to go back to the war of independence for that. Every, serving member of the armed forces is a mercenary, paid
by the US taxpayer, to kill fire Israel as they establish greater Israel.
So STOP looking at your armed forces as heroes. They aren't, not one, single one! See them for what they are, braindead, brainwashed,
fighting machines, WHO DON'T FIGHT FOR YOU! And that's what's worrying. Throughout history every armed force has been turned against
its own nation and its just a matter of time with the US. THEY WILL use them against you, to push nationwide vaccination.
The armed forces, like the police, are your enemy and I strongly suggest that if you know anyone in them, or a friend whose
family members are in them, tell them to leave ASAP before they institute martial law. Remember, the armed forces don't serve
you, so leaving them is doing the people good while staying within is causing them harm.
I'm suspicious of Biden's planned withdrawal from Afghanistan. The troops will probably get reassigned to the Middle East or
the Polish Border. Trump's "withdrawal" from Syria just amounted to shipping those troops to Iraq.
The Biden administration is a revolutionary one. It is not American and doesn't pretend to be. Like Lenin's early revolutionary
Bolshevik government it is comprised of mostly Jews and racial/ethnic minorities who are antagonistic towards the majority population
and its history and traditions.
I believe that the Jews, radical blacks and others who are really in charge of the Biden administration have no plans to relinquish
power in 2024 even if they lose the election. Since the courts refused to provide a legal remedy for battleground states breaking
their own elections laws to massively increase Democrat mail-in ballots then they will just do it again unless Republicans can
win the gubernatorial elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. But that might not be possible with mail-in ballot schemes
that were illegally put in place.
Will whites support a globalist regime that picks fights abroad and wars against them at home? The mood of the country is
comparable to East German during the 1980's. Resignation and apathy. The last election was a fraud, the media are liars, the courts
are political, privacy and free speech aren't being protected, and half the country declares it hates the other half.
Go ahead, try to conjure a false flag to rally Team America
There are no signs whites are about to repudiate the Evil Empire. Trace Adkins, Gerald McRaney are on tv advertisements imploring
whites to provide financial support to the fools who came back crippled from fighting in Israel's wars.
"Will Whites Support A Globalist American Empire That Picks Fights Abroad and Wars Against Them At Home?"
The answer is YES, they will.
Why?
Because they've been zombified by 150 years of corporate media whose only purpose is to use subliminal messages 24/7 to control
them. Worse of all, they pay monthly fees in order to be zombified!
Wait for the next false flag attack against the US "Interests" at home or abroad and you'll see how the zombies behave.
Elites, oligarchs, plutocrats, super-rich, whatever, but don't slime the Yankees.
And while I agree with much of this, don't forget that in the late 1960's the elites imported Mexicans to specifically replace
blacks. And then cried a river of tears at how blacks were mysteriously losing ground!!!!
Oh and also: nobody NEEDS cheap labor to run factories. History has shown that without cheap labor factories run perfectly
well. It's just that the elites need cheap labor to stay elite
The real enemy of the American working class and middle class all of them is neoliberalism ! Coupled with a two party plutocracy
that disenfranchises the same Americans who desperately need a more equitable society! Nothing to do with Russia or China we caused
it all by ourselves!
This is why there needs to be White Liberation from Jewish Supremacism. But Jewish Power tries to preempt this by making a
big stink about 'white supremacism'.
No more white support for Jewish supremacist tyranny over Palestinians and mass murder of Arabs/Muslims. If, after 2020, any
white person still harbors sentimentality about Jewish Power, he or she is cuck-roach. Useless and worthless.
Currently, an indebted, belligerent, imperialist U.S. is being propped up by naïve, well-meaning whites.
These "well-meaning whites" are the enemy. "Well-meaning whites" have always been the greatest enemy of Whites. A lot of people
here consider Jews to be our greatest enemies. But why are they here in such huge numbers and why are they in control? It started
with the Powdered-Wig Gang (a.k.a. the Founding Fathers) giving them citizenship on the basis of their shit "Enlightenment" ideology,
which held that religion was merely a private matter and of no importance. No country at the time gave Jews citizenship save Poland,
which had fallen under their sway and paid an exceedingly high price for it. Then France followed the American example when they
had their own powdered-wig revolution.
The tragedy of the US is that nearly every fair-skinned, non-Jewish individual who has any influence here is a "well-meaning
White". Generations of brainwashing have done that. Their latest bit of tomfoolery is the belief "Uncle Tim" Scott, a dim, charmless,
venal, ugly black mediocrity, will be their savior. By the way, the first time I laid eyes on Uncle Tim, I said myself, "They're
going to want to make that fellow president." That's no reason to brag, however, because "well-meaning whites" are nothing if
not predictable.
"Well-meaning whites" have no common sense and can't learn from experience. They could not conceive the idea "diversity" is
the problem. "Diversity" elected Joe Biden, through bloc-voting by non-Whites and by she-boons in black-dominated counties bringing
in suitcases of fake ballots, but guess what: as far as "well-meaning Whites" are concerned, "diversity" in the form of "Uncle
Tim" Scott is the solution.
What it comes down to is that if Whites want the White race to survive, then "well-meaning whites", who can accurately be called
"liberals", have to go. Whites cannot afford to be sentimental about "well-meaning whites".
@xyzxy the Zio-western imperialists decided ( ie "backed down") not to risk crossing them.
Incidentally JK I don't disagree with this position --
"Rather than feeling anger or shame at this national humiliation, instead I feel something like schadenfreude against them --
along with righteous indignation on behalf of the countless patriots used up and spat out by a System unworthy of their sacrifice."
But perhaps you could spare a few words & emotions for the poor bloody average Afghans who have died in their 100's of 1000's
in this vicious, stupid war.
A lack of sympathy for & indeed basic knowledge of, other peoples is part of the reason the US constantly gets stuck in these
ridiculous wars. (Had they the "leaders" we have now , the Vietnam War would probably have limped to a halt sometime in
the late 80's).
Hmm. Kirkpatrick doesn't seem to realize that 911 was sort of an official beginning to the elites domestic threat problem?
There was never a reason to enter Afghanistan because Afghanistan never attacked us and nor did Osama Bin Laden.
As long as ppl believe the official story there will always be a reason the American citizen can support for invading middle east
countries
Like the holocaust, it is a lynch pin lie that is the pre-requisite for all sorts claims and behaviors that without them would
otherwise not give validation
I doubt Russia has any regard for Turkey – it has a very long history of wars against them and knows just how treacherous they
are.
Russia alone is powerful enough to end life in USA
USA has lost Europe already- Merkel is aligning with China
Americans think Russian gas binds Germany rather than export markets like China and the fact EU needs semiconductors and Asia
is where they are produced
No one takes USA seriously any more it is peripheral as in 19th century. You forget Europeans cannot travel to US and frankly
fear to do so anyway
This cannot be said nearly enough. WASP culture is WASP elites hating all 'other' whites and pretending not to hate
a few non-WASP white groups when they (the WASPs) can use them against the whites they most hate or fear at the moment. WASPs
discard all groups they use as soon as they no longer need them to wage some type war against still other whites.
The Scotch-Irish are probably the best example of what WASPs think of even those who serve them most ruthlessly.
The mood of the country is comparable to East German during the 1980's. Resignation and apathy.
The last election was a fraud, the media are liars, the courts are political, privacy and free speech aren't being protected,
and half the country declares it hates the other half.
Go ahead, try to conjure a false flag to rally Team America.
It does look like resignation and apathy – which is sort of logical – given that all centers of power are in the hands of the
totalitarians (same as in the old East Germany).
The totalitarian Communist East German regime actually collapsed when it became caught up in the mass demonstrations of neighbouring
countries (Poland Feb. 1989 and Hungary the following month). The Communists didn't have the political will/ability to suppress
demonstrations on this scale and ceded power. Two points here are 1) that the public in each country overwhelmingly opposed the
government 2) each country was ethnically united (Poles in Poland, Hungarians in Hungary and Germans in East Germany) and viewed
their oppression as sourced externally (the Soviet Union).
The US looks different, since the population is split both politically and ethnically. So if anything is going to happen (unlikely)
then it's either a civil war, a military coup or a world war (nuclear) removing most major American cities + Israel.
@anonymouseperson c accountants uncovering the depths of Israel and its fifth column's theft of many tens of billions of our
war matériel and of our most guarded military secrets, which were then sold to China in concert with the Greenspan/Goldman Sachs
plan to transfer of our industrial intellectual assets and over 50,000 factories to China in preparation for a new order based
on joint Israeli-Chinese technocratic hegemony.
My point is that the uninterrupted, elaborate efforts at 9/11 concealment legally constitute, by themselves, sufficient proof
of the Pentagon's complicity and guilt in 9/11 and, therefore, make it an alien occupation force that serves Israel, its fifth
column, and no other. A war completing the "Bolsheviks" effective extermination of white Christian Russia at the same time as
exterminating white Christian America appears to be the objective of International Jewry, whom alone Joe Biden and his Pentagon
answer to.
When I was in the US Army, I never met anyone who signed up to 'fight for the Anglo-Zionist empire'. We were there for a variety
of reasons, no job, to get training, money for college, adventure or maybe running away from a crazy girlfriend. As the grandson
of immigrants, I was probably the most patriotic, the rest of the guys, not so much. Young men will always join the military,
whether the military oppresses its people or not. How many Irishmen served in the British military when they had few civil rights
back home? In the military, a young White man can learn a trade, learn military tactics, earn money for college and become a real
asset to his community. You can also get killed or maimed, but at 18 or 19, we didn't think about that.
Will Whites Support A Globalist American Empire That Picks Fights Abroad and Wars Against Them At Home?
If they are members of Congress, the military leadership, the police, the FBI, the NSA, the CIA, the MSM, or the leadership
of either political party the answer is clearly a resounding YES!!
I believe a large percentage of whites in America have a Stockholm syndrome of some kind going on. The title of the article
has rolled two very separate issues into one. As far as continuing to support wars abroad that aren't benefiting the average person
of whatever color is not an issue that can be specifically directed at Marxist oriented regimes such as that of Obama/Hillary
and now Sleepy Joe & Camel Toe. One can never forget the years of the faux conservative Bushlet regime. Whites as a group more
overtly support the military than do other racial groups (even though blacks and Hispanics make up a large percentage of our military).
They are very reluctant to criticize American foreign policy as unpatriotic and somehow react to military interventions as if
they were a sporting event.
Their concept of patriotism is very puerile. Many never ask the question of who benefits? (bankers, weapons manufacturers
and Zionists). As far as the war on whites is concerned, here is where the Stockholm syndrome comes more into play. Our people
have been psychologically beaten into submission by accepting whatever the Marxist intelligentsia throws at them.But there is
also a cultural flaw primarily among Northern European Protestant whites which consists of being perceived as NICE. Stop being
NICE, especially to people who wish you dead. Is this some sort of perversion of Christianity? Maybe. Rather than throwing the
whole Gospel message out the window, a recalibration of one's Christianity needs to happen as well. The churches have not been
our friend either.
"... As has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in U.S. history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her comeback in a far more spectacular form. ..."
As has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in U.S.
history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her comeback
in a far more spectacular form.
Forget that old fraud Bernie Sanders; Tulsi Gabbard and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the
best hopes progressives in United States now have for saving and renewing Democratic values and
a functioning political system. And watch Senator Ted Cruz to eventually unify a resurgent
nationalist Right.
In my 2015 book “
Cycles of Change †I predicted both the nationalist insurgency of Donald Trump
in the Republican Party and the progressive one unexpectedly spearheaded by Senator Bernie
Sanders in the Democratic Party that lastingly transformed U.S. politics in the 2016 election
cycle.
The Big Lie (of Josef Goebbels) proportions that Russia influenced or decided the shock
outcome of the 2016 presidential election in reality was cooked up by defeated Democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton â€" a bungling loser of historic proportions
â€" on the very same night she was still reeling from her rejection at the Javits
Center in Brooklyn after the results came out.
Since then, the old Republicans and Democratic Establishments alike have since eagerly clung
to the Big Lie because it offers them an excuse to deny and ignore what really happened: The
American people for once fitfully rose to express their ringing rejection â€" on
both sides of the political divide â€" of the ruinous policies of free trade,
globalization and ludicrous pretensions to World Empire to which they had been subjected for
the previous 70 years.
However, President Donald Trump was ruthlessly opposed, undermined, betrayed, slandered and
blocked on his honorable and responsible foreign policy and national security goals to restrain
NATO improve relations with Russia and pull U.S. combat forces out of both Iraq and Afghanistan
over the following four years and by the time of the next national election in 2024, he will be
78 â€" as old as Joe Biden is now. Undoubtedly the efforts to destroy and discredit
Trump will continue unabated from now until then.
Trump should not yet be ruled out by any means but he has already played the role of being
the Prophetic Precursor of the new and coming Political Age, as I pointed, out in
“Cycles of Change,†my overview of more than 200 years of U.S.
political history, published in 2015.
That “prophetic†pioneering role wa splayed by General John
Fremont in 1856 for Abraham Lincoln four years later; by New York Governor Al Smith, the
“Happy Warrior†in 1928 for the epochal election victory of
Franklin D. Roosevelt four years later; and by Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964 for the eventual
presidency and new political era of Ronald Reagan starting in 1980-81.
Who will be the coming leader of the conservative/nationalist Right in 21st century America?
The most likely candidate so far by far is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who ran unsuccessfully
against Trump in 2016 before learning for himself the policies and priorities of the coming
Political Age.
On April 14, Cruz, renowned for having easily the most brilliant legal mind in the U.S.
Congress, eviscerated Kristen Clarke, President Biden’s nominee to head the
Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department when she appeared before the Senate Judiciary
Committee.
On the Democrats’ side, Independent Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont
is now a twice-busted flush: Both in 2016 and 2020, the Democratic presidential nomination was
his for the asking: He in real terms decisively and humiliatingly exposed first Hillary Clinton
and then Joe Biden â€" both heirs of the worthless and despicable Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama administrations they served so energetically for so long.
However, on both occasions, Sanders froze up at the crucial moments of decision when the
nomination was twice stolen from him by vote manipulation (in 20216) and political chicanery
(in 2020) before his eyes. When it comes to the High Noon moment of any political showdown,
Sanders will always fold â€" just as he always has.
On the Democrats’ side, the contest for leadership superficial appears
more open, but two dynamic young women in reality easily lead the field.
Right now, New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, †AOC†,
who was supporting herself as a bartender before she won the Democratic nomination for her
district and then the congressional election in shock outcomes in 2018, is by far in the lead.
This is not even primarily because of AOC’s passionate advocacy of a Green
New Deal, which indeed makes absolutely no industrial or economic or financial sense the closer
one looks at it: It is because she is genuinely charismatic, genuinely aggressive and fearless
in her public appearances.
The more that America’s progressives â€" admittedly an
exceptionally slow-witted lot â€" wake up to the fact that Bernie Sanders will never
lead them to real power or victory in anything, the higher AOC’s star
rises.
She is already, at only age 31, the real leader of the Progressive Caucus in the Democratic
Party and she is half a century younger than 81-year-old Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
Pelosi only won her precious House majority in November 2018. Yet already, she is watching
it vanish before her eyes.
Worse for Pelosi is sure to come: It is perfectly feasible that even before next
year’s congressional midterm elections, a handful of congressional special
elections could throw control of the House to current Republican Minority Leader Kevin
McCarthy, who loathes Pelosi and her ancient creaking clique of cronies with a never-burning
passion. Then, Pelosi’s fading clout will be totally gone and AOC with her
passion and a new generation of radicals riding the Winds of Change with her will take over
Democratic Party in Congress far earlier than any of the Old Fogeys on either side dreams.
AOC must therefore be seen as the frontrunner for the new age: But if she fails to measure
up and establish national credibility, the other most likely future presidential hopeful for
the Democrats is another forceful, beautiful and exceptionally intelligent young lady hardly
older than the New York congresswoman is: That is former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard from
Hawaii, who was effectively squeezed out from her own congressional seat on the idyllic Pacific
island by the machinations of the old Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi gang of rotting old
politicos.
However, as has happened with epochal champions of generational transformation and change in
U.S. history before her, Gabbard’s eclipse in Hawaii could lead to her
comeback in a far more spectacular form.
She may move to California â€" a vastly superior political base to her home in
Hawaii for national U.S. politics. Also, her outstanding military record, highly unusual for a
young rising female Democrat of the current generation and her mastery of defense and national
security issues potentially gives her a far more potent and impressive credibility across the
American continent than AOC.
For Ocasio-Cortez’s appeal is like a laser beam: It is undoubtedly
powerful but also quite narrow, centered on the East and West Coasts and to a far lesser
degree, the much smaller progressive enclaves in major metropolitan areas across the
country.
Gabbard by contrast has the potential to reach deep into the Heartland. She was carefully
kept out of most of the nationally televised political debates for the 2020 presidential
nomination by her own party’s leaders. They were terrified of her.
However, Gabbard was an absolute knockout in the debates when she got a word in edgewise.
And she proved effortlessly able especially to demolish then-Senator and now-Vice President
Kamala Harris. That could prove of priceless importance to the national credibility of the
Progressive movement if, as appears likely Harris succeeds Biden into the White House in 2024,
or even sooner.
However, Gabbard has also shown the potential to move dramatically from one extreme of the
political chessboard to the other, much like a bishop moved a diagonal right across the
board:
In January 2021, she launched her own podcast called “This is Tulsi
Gabbard†and she has appeared a number of times on the conservative-leaning Fox
News Channel since she left Congress, focusing her outspoken attacks on Pelosi and House
Judiciary Committee Chair and leading Pelosi crony Congressman Adam Schiff. It is not
inconceivable to see her as an eventual running mate for the nationalist right on a Republican
ticket led by Senator Ted Cruz in 2024 or 2028. (In 2028, she will still be only 47).
Cruz and AOC are truly powerful potent emerging forces on the Right and Left of U.S.
politics. Gabbard has the intriguing potential to completely transform the picture on either
side. Between them, they offer hope that the new forces awakened by Trump and Sanders may
triumph yet.
I have just finished reading a couple of weighty tomes with similar themes: Dark Money by Jane
Mayer is about how some nominally right-wing libertarian sociopaths, (i.e. the Kochs and their
coterie) seek to control American politics through various 'charitable' think tanks and stealth
infiltration of top ranked universities; and
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which is about how some nominally
left-wing(ish) libertarian whiz kid sociopaths seek to control the whole world through social
media.
My main take away is that libertarian ideology is just shorthand for narcissistic
entitlement and psychopathic greed.
bshirley1968 3 minutes ago
bshirley1968 3 minutes ago
"Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg cares so much about the environment that he
decided to ride a bicycle to work at least the last two blocks.
He was caught unloading a bicycle from a black SUV a short distance from the White House
so he could finish his ride to the cabinet meeting on bike. Such a great photo
opportunity.
Security followed in the SUV.
Perfect example of everything coming out of DC. Everything is a narrative supported by some
kabuki theater.
Apparently it was "You pissed on my rug!". I guess if they update that book and article,
they'll include Trump characterizing Justin as "weak and dishonest" - which I would say,
based on his 7 years as PM, is blunt but accurate.
I think you're right that any US concessions are just a reprieve. That
non-agreement-capable thing. Freeland and Justin don't care, they're looking forward to
getting rich after leaving office, like the Clintons, Obama, etc. as a reward for their
service to plutocracy.
William Gruff @19, Hoarsewhisperer @16, agreed. That, it seems to me is the root of the
problem. Our politicians are for sale to the highest bidders. It's no longer democracy, but
full-fledged plutocracy with a veneer of "democracy" that's visibly cracked and flaking off
to anyone but the willfully blind.
solo @38, good point. Saudi Arabia also sided with China on Xinjiang:
Importantly, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia 'firmly supports China's legitimate
position on the issues related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong, opposes interfering in China's
internal affairs under any pretext, and rejects the attempt by certain parties to sow
dissension between China and the Islamic world.'
Plainly put, Saudi Arabia has undercut the current US campaign against China regarding
Xinjiang. It is a snub to the Biden administration.
While Joe Biden has faced some mild Congressional pushback for bombing the Iraq-Syria border, Tulsi Gabbard says her former
colleagues are ignoring the larger issue:
the ongoing US dirty war on Syria
.
After a decade of proxy warfare that empowered Al Qaeda and ISIS,
the US is now
occupying one-third of Syria and imposing crippling sanctions
that are crushing Syria's economy and preventing
reconstruction.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/mBdO1Rc9ctU
Watch:
Featuring video clips from -- Tulsi Gabbard,
former Democratic Congressmember; President Joe Biden; Brett McGurk, National Security Council coordinator for the Middle
East and North Africa; Martin Dempsey, former Joint Chiefs chairman; Rob Malley, Special Envoy for Iran; John Kerry,
Special Envoy for Climate & former Secretary of State; former President Donald Trump; Alena Douhan, UN Special Rapporteur
on Sanctions; Dana Stroul, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East; Vice President Kamala Harris.
While Gabbard has been vilified for her stance on Syria, many top White House officials – including Joe Biden himself –
have already acknowledged the same facts that she has called out.
Aaron Maté plays clips of Biden and
some of his most senior aides
admitting
to
the horrific realities of the US dirty war on Syria, and argues that Gabbard only stands apart in being wiling to criticize
it
.
* * *
21,478
113
N
Garciathinksso
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Dems had a
perfectly fine candidate in Gabbard, no surprise she was shunned and ignored by her own party
newworldorder
1 hour ago
Democrats wanted fake males like Beto and but-plug Pete, instead of a Female USNG Officer.
BarnacleBill
22 minutes ago
Tulsi understood exactly what goes on over there - the utter cruelties and uncaring slaughters that are
responsible for the contempt with which the USA is held by the civilised people of the world. The wars
are - as I wrote in one of my personal journal/blog posts some years ago - a war against women. (Link
below) The women in mind were - and are still today - unarmed non-combatants, who are murdered
deliberately in order to punish their menfolk and to traumatise their children. It is as disgusting as
the German camps of the 1940s, and will be remembered in the same way by the survivors in their homes
eighty years from now. They will never forget.
Just to point out - Tulsi Gabbard made it all the way through the Democrat Primaries, and won more
votes and delegates than Kamala Harris (who dropped out before even the first primary), yet Harris
somehow became the presumptive co-President with Dementia Joe.
Yes, Virginia, it was a color revolution
thezone
1 hour ago
She'll probably be called a Russian Agent for criticizing the supreme ruler. Oh wait, that already
happened.
You_Cant_Quit_Me
1 hour ago
Biden is a warmonger who has no problem sending your sons and daughters off as target on a phantom war
madashellron
42 minutes ago
(Edited)
remove
link
God
Bless Tulsi. She is one of the only politicians speaking of these grave Crimes Against Humanity, the US
is engaged in Syria.
One
final note. The Syrian envoy from Russia. Publicly warned Israel. If they continue attacking Syria.
Russia will have no choice but to start shooting down Israel's Jets. Since this warning almost a week
ago. Israel has not attacked Syria.
rwe2late
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Not
only Syria.
The
US
every day
now attacks
foreigners with about 50 bombs and missiles, possibly much more, mostly in secrecy, and in half dozen or
more countries.
The
US admitted to 27,923 bombs in 2018, and 17,281 bombs in 2019. In 2020, the totals were made secret.
Not ever included were attacks by helicopters, gunships, or strafing.
"the U.S. military and its allies are engaged in
bombing and killing people in other countries on a daily basis. The U.S. and its allies have dropped more
than 326,000 bombs and missiles on people in other countries since 2001."
Tulsi, sometimes I think there's a chance for you, then you go and blow it by retreating back to your
Democratic brethren and vote the party line. You can't have it both ways.
novictim
59 minutes ago
remove
link
It's critical that the fairly elected Assad regime be deposed ASAP and ISIS linked militants become the
governance force. Why? Because China Joe did not win the US Presidential Election and, thus, any fairly
elected leader is a threat to the US Deep State establishment.
Master Jack
1 hour ago
remove
link
A
better question is:
Can
anyone explain why the US is involved in so many military conflicts that the government refuses to call
wars?
King of Kalifornia
1 hour ago
Here's a hint.
The US killed 2million plus people, spent over a trillion dollars, and lost thousands of their own
attacking Iraq.
The United States of America is now a classic oligarchy. The clarity that it has brought to
our situation by recognizing this fact is its only virtue...
"Either the Constitution matters and must be followed . . . or it is simply a piece of
parchment on display at the National Archives."
- Texas v. Pennsylvania et al.
T exas v. Pennsylvania et al. did not deny setting rules for the 2020 election contrary to
the Constitution. On December 10, 2020, the Supreme Court
discounted that . By refusing to interfere as America's ruling oligarchy serves itself, the
court archived what remained of the American republic's system of equal justice. That much is
clear.
In 2021, the laws, customs, and habits of the heart that had defined the American republic
since the 18th century are things of the past. Americans' movements and interactions are under
strictures for which no one ever voted. Government disarticulated society by penalizing
ordinary social intercourse and precluding the rise of spontaneous opinion therefrom. Together
with corporate America, it smothers minds through the mass and social media with relentless,
pervasive, identical, and ever-evolving directives. In that way, these oligarchs have
proclaimed themselves the arbiters of truth, entitled and obliged to censor whoever disagrees
with them as systemically racist, adepts of conspiracy theories.
Corporations, and the government itself, require employees to attend meetings personally to
acknowledge their guilt. They solicit mutual accusations. While violent felons are released
from prison, anyone may be fired or otherwise have his life wrecked for questioning
government/corporate sentiment. Today's rulers don't try to convince. They demand obedience,
and they punish.
Russians and East Germans under Communists Leonid Brezhnev and Erich Honecker in the 1970s
lived under less ruling class pressure than do today's Americans. And their rulers were smart
enough not to insult them, their country, or their race.
In 2015, Americans could still believe they lived in a republic, in which life's rules flow
from the people through their representatives.
In 2021, a class of rulers draws their right to rule from self-declared experts' claims of
infallibility that dwarf baroque kings' pretensions. In that self-referential sense, the United
States of America is now a classic oligarchy.
The following explains how this change happened. The clarity that it has brought to our
predicament is its only virtue.
Oligarchy had long been growing within America's republican forms. The 2016 election posed
the choice of whether its rise should consolidate, or not. Consolidation was very much "in the
cards." But how that election and its aftermath led to the fast, thorough, revolution of
American life depended on how Donald Trump acted as the catalyst who clarified, energized, and
empowered our burgeoning oligarchy's peculiarities. These, along with the manner in which the
oligarchy seized power between November 2016 and November 2020, ensure that its reign will be
ruinous and likely short. The prospect that the republic's way of life may thrive among those
who wish it to depends on the manner in which they manage the civil conflict that is now
inevitable.
From Ruling Class to Oligarchy
By the 21st century's first decade, little but formality was left of the American republic.
In 1942, Joseph Schumpeter's Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy described the logic by which government and big business tend to
coalesce into socialism in theory, oligarchy in practice. But by then, that logic had already
imposed itself on the Western world. Italy's 1926 Law of Corporations -- fascism's charter --
inaugurated not so much the regulation of business by government as the coalescence of the
twain. Over the ensuing decade, it was more or less copied throughout the West.
In America, the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act's authors had erected barriers against private
oligopolies and monopolies. By maintaining competition between big business, they hoped to
preserve private freedoms and limit government's role. But the Great Depression's pressures and
temptations led to the New Deal's rules that differed little from Italy's. No matter that, as
the Supreme Court pointed out in Schechter Poultry v. U.S . , public-private
amalgamation does not fit in the Constitution. It grew nevertheless alongside the notion that
good government proceeds from the experts' judgment rather than from the voters' choices. The
miracles of production that America brought forth in World War II seemed to validate the
point.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who had come to understand large organizations that feed on
government power and dispense vast private benefits, was not shy in warning about the danger
they pose to the republic. His warning about the " military-industrial
complex " that he knew so well is often misunderstood as a mere caution against militarism.
But Ike was making a broader point: Amalgams of public and private power tend to prioritize
their corporate interests over the country's.
That is why Eisenhower cautioned against the power of government-funded expertise. "The
prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and
the power of money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded," he said, because "public
policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." Government money
can accredit a self-regarding elite. Because "a government contract becomes virtually a
substitute for intellectual curiosity," government experts can end up substituting their power
for truth.
The expansion of government power throughout the 1960s and '70s in pursuit of improving
education, eradicating poverty, and uplifting blacks created complexes of public-private power
throughout America that surpassed the military-industrial complex in size, and above all in
influence.
Consider education. Post-secondary education increased fourfold, from 9 percent of Americans
holding four-year degrees in 1965 to 36 percent in 2015. College towns became islands of wealth
and political power. From them came endless "studies" that purported to be arbiters of truth
and wisdom, as well as a growing class of graduates increasingly less educated but ever so much
more socio-politically uniform.
In the lower grades, per-pupil expenditure (in constant dollars) went from $3,200 in 1960 to
$13,400 in 2015. That money fueled an even more vast and powerful complex -- one that includes
book publishers, administrators, and labor unions and that has monopolized the minds of at
least two generations. As it grew, the education establishment also detached itself from the
voters' control: In the 1950s, there were some 83,000 public school districts in America. By
2015, only around 13,000 remained for a population twice as large. Today's parents have many
times less influence over their children's education than did their grandparents.
Analogous things happened in every field of life. Medicine came to be dominated by the
government's relationship with drug companies and hospital associations. When Americans went to
buy cars, or even light bulbs and shower nozzles, they found their choices limited by deals
between government, industry, and insurance companies. These entities regarded each other as
"stakeholders" in an oligarchic system. But they had ever less need to take account of mere
citizens in what was becoming a republic in name only. As the 20eth century was drawing to a
close, wherever citizens looked, they saw a government and government-empowered entities over
which they had ever less say, which ruled ever more unaccountably, and whose attitude toward
them was ever less friendly.
The formalities were the last to go. Ever since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215 A.D.,
the rulers' dependence on popular assent to expenditures has been the essence of limited
government. Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution enshrines that principle.
Congressional practice embodied it. Details of bills and expenditures were subject to public
hearings and votes in subcommittees, committees, and the floors of both Houses. But beginning
in the early 1980s and culminating in 2007, the U.S government abandoned the appropriations
process.
Until 1981, Congress had used "continuing resolutions" to continue funding government
operations unchanged until regular appropriations could be made. Thereafter, as congressional
leaders learned how easy it is to use this vehicle to avoid exposing what they are doing to
public scrutiny, they legislated and appropriated ever less in public, and increasingly put
Congress' output into continuing resolutions or omnibus bills, amounting to trillions of
dollars and thousands of pages, impossible for representatives and senators to read, and
presented to them as the only alternative to "shutting down the government." This -- now the
U.S government standard operating procedure -- enables the oligarchy's "stakeholders" to
negotiate their internal arrangements free from responsibility to citizens. It is the practical
abolition of Article I section 9 -- and of the Magna Carta itself.
In the 21st century, the American people's trust in government plummeted as they -- on the
political Left as well as on the Right -- realized that those in power care little for them. As
they watched corporate and non-profit officials trade places with public officials and
politicians while getting much richer, they felt impoverished and disempowered. Since the
ruling class embraced Republicans and Democrats, elections seemed irrelevant. The presidential
elections of 2008 and 2012 underlined that whoever won, the same people would be in charge and
that the parceling out of wealth and power among stakeholders would continue.
Americans on the Right were especially aggrieved because the oligarchy had become culturally
united in disdain for Western civilization in general and for themselves in particular. The
cultural warfare it waged on the rest of America inflamed opposition. But it also diluted its
own focus on solidifying profitable arrangements.
By 2016, America was already well into the classic cycles of revolution. The atrophy of
institutions, the waning of republican habits, and the increasing, reciprocal disrespect
between classes that have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways
of life more different from one another, than did the 19th century's Northerners and
Southerners precluded returning to traditional republican life. The election would determine
whether the oligarchy could consolidate itself. More important, it would affect the speed by
which the revolutionary vortex would carry the country, and the amount of violence this would
involve.
The Trump Catalyst
By 2015, the right side of America's challenge to the budding oligarchy was inevitable.
Trump was not inevitable. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) had begun posing a thorough challenge to
the "stakeholders" most Americans disrespected. Candidate Trump was the more gripping showman.
His popularity came from his willingness to disrespect them, loudly. Because the other 16
Republican candidates ran on different bases, none ever had a chance. Inevitably, victory in a
field so crowded depended on when which minor candidate did or did not withdraw. There never
was a head-to-head choice between Trump and Cruz.
Trump's candidacy drew the ferocious opposition it did primarily because the entire ruling
class recognized that, unlike McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012, he really was mobilizing
millions of Americans against the arrangements by which the ruling class live, move, and have
their being. Since Cruz's candidacy represented the same threat, it almost certainly would have
drawn no less intense self-righteous anger. Nasty narratives could have been made up about him
out of whole cloth as easily as about Trump.
But Trump's actual peculiarities made it possible for the oligarchy to give the impression
that its campaign was about his person, his public flouting of conventional norms, rather than
about the preservation of their own power and wealth. The principal consequence of the ruling
class' opposition to candidate Trump was to convince itself, and then its followers, that
defeating him was so important that it legitimized, indeed dictated, setting aside all laws,
and truth itself.
Particular individuals had never been the oligarchy's worry. In 2008, as Barack Obama was
running against Hillary Clinton and John McCain -- far cries from Trump -- he pointed to those
Americans who "cling to God and guns" as the problem's root. Clinton's 2016 remark that Trump's
supporters were "a basket of deplorables," -- racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. -- merely
voiced what had long been the oligarchy's consensus judgment of most Americans. For them,
pushing these Americans as far away as possible from the levers of power, treating them as less
than citizens, had already come to define justice and right.
Donald Trump -- his bombastic, hyperbolic style, his tendency to play fast and loose with
truth, even to lie as he insulted his targets -- fit perfectly the oligarchy's image of his
supporters, and lent a color of legitimacy to the utterly illegitimate collusion between the
oligarchy's members in government and those in the Democratic Party running against Trump.
Thus did the FBI and CIA, in league with the major media and the Democratic Party, spy on
candidate Trump, concocting and spreading all manner of synthetic dirt about him. Nevertheless,
to universal surprise, he won, or rather the oligarchy lost, the 2016 election.
The oligarchy's disparate members had already set aside laws, truth, etc. in opposition to
Trump. The realization that the presidency's awesome powers now rested in his hands fostered a
full-court-press #Resistance. Trump's peculiarities helped make it far more successful than
anyone could have imagined.
"Dogs That Bark Do Not Bite"
Applying this observation to candidate Trump's hyperbole suggested that President Trump
might suffer from what Theodore Roosevelt called the most self-destructive of habits, combining
"the unbridled tongue with the unready hand." And, in fact, President Trump neither fired and
referred for prosecution James Comey or the other intelligence officials who had run the
surveillance of his campaign. He praised them, and let himself be persuaded to fire General
Michael Flynn, his national security advisor, who stood in the way of the intelligence
agencies' plans against him. Nor did he declassify and make public all the documents associated
with their illegalities.
Four years later, he left office with those documents still under seal. He criticized
officials over whom he had absolute power, notably CIA's Gina Haspel who likely committed a
crime spying on his candidacy, but left them in office. Days after his own inauguration, he
suffered the CIA's removal of clearances from one of his appointees because he was a critic of
the Agency. Any president worthy of his office would have fired the entire chain of officials
who had made that decision. Instead, he appointed to these agencies people loyal to them and
hostile to himself.
He acted similarly with other agencies. His first secretary of state, secretary of defense,
and national security advisor mocked him publicly. At their behest, in August 2017, he gave a
nationally televised speech in which he effectively thanked them for showing him that he had
been wrong in opposing ongoing war in the Middle East. He railed against Wall Street but left
untouched the tax code's "carried interest" provision that is the source of much unearned
wealth. He railed against the legal loophole that lets Google, Facebook, and Twitter censor
content without retribution, but did nothing to close it. Already by the end of January 2017,
it was clear that no one in Washington needed to fear Trump. By the time he left office,
Washington was laughing at him.
Nor did Trump protect his supporters. For example, he shared their resentment of being
ordered to attend workplace sessions about their "racism." But not until his last months in
office did he ban the practice within the federal government. Never did he ban contracts with
companies that require such sessions.
Thus, as the oligarchy set about negating the 2016 electorate's attempt to stop its
consolidation of power, Trump had assured them that they would neither be impeded as they did
so nor pay a price. Donald Trump is not responsible for the oligarchy's power. But he was
indispensable to it.
#TheResistance rallied every part of the ruling class to mutually supporting efforts.
Nothing encourages, amplifies, or seemingly justifies extreme sentiments as does being part of
a unanimous chorus, a crowd, a mob -- especially when all can be sure they are acting safely,
gratuitously. Success supercharges them. #TheResistance fostered the sense in the ruling class'
members that they are more right, more superior, and more entitled than they had ever imagined.
It made millions of people feel bigger and better about themselves than they ever
had.
Logic and Dysfunction
Disdain for the "deplorables" united and energized parts of American society that, apart
from their profitable material connections to government, have nothing in common and often have
diverging interests. That hate, that determination to feel superior to the "deplorables" by
treading upon them, is the "intersectionality," the glue that binds, say, Wall Street
coupon-clippers, folks in the media, officials of public service unions, gender studies
professors, all manner of administrators, radical feminists, race and ethnic activists, and so
on. #TheResistance grew by awakening these groups to the powers and privileges to which they
imagine their superior worth entitles them, to their hate for anyone who does not submit
preemptively.
Ruling-class judges sustained every bureaucratic act of opposition to the Trump
Administration. Thousands of identical voices in major media echoed every charge, every
insinuation, non-stop and unquestioned. #TheResistance made it ruling-class policy that Trump's
and his voters' racism and a host of other wrongdoing made them, personally, illegitimate. In
any confrontation, the ruling class deemed these presumed white supremacists in the wrong,
systemically. By 2018, the ruling class had effectively placed the "deplorables" outside the
protection of the laws. By 2020, they could be fired for a trifle, set upon in the streets,
prosecuted on suspicion of bad attitudes, and even for defending themselves.
Because each and every part of the ruling coalition's sense of what may assuage its
grievances evolves without natural limit, this logic is as insatiable as it is powerful. It is
also inherently destructive of oligarchy.
Enjoyment of power's material perquisites is classic oligarchy's defining purpose. Having
conquered power over the people, successful oligarchies foster environments in which they can
live in peace, productively. Oligarchy, like all regimes, cannot survive if it works at
cross-purposes. But the oligarchy that seized power in America between 2016 and 2020 is engaged
in a never-ending seizure of ever more power and the infliction of ever more punishment -- in a
war against the people without imaginable end. Clearly, that is contrary to what the Wall
Street magnates or the corps of bureaucrats or the university administrators or senior
professors want. But that is what the people want who wield the "intersectional" passions that
put the oligarchy in power.
As the oligarchy's every part, every organ, raged against everything Trump, it made itself
less attractive to the public even as Trump's various encouragements of economic activity were
contributing to palpable increases in prosperity.
Hence, by 2019's end, Trump was likely to win reelection. Then came COVID-19.
The
COVID Fortuna
The COVID-19 virus is no plague. Though quite contagious, its infection/fatality rate (IFR),
about 0.01 percent, is that of the average flu, and its effects are generally so mild that most
whom it infects never know it.
Like all infections, it is deadly to those weakened severely by other causes. It did not
transform American life by killing people, but by the fears about it that our oligarchy
packaged and purveyed. Fortuna , as Machiavelli reminds us, is inherently submissive to whoever
bends her to his wishes. The fears and the strictures they enabled were not about health -- if
only because those who purveyed and imposed them did not apply them to themselves. They were
about power over others.
COVID's politicization began in February 2020 with the adoption by the World Health
Organization -- which is headed by an Ethiopian bureaucrat beholden to China -- and upon
recommendation of non-scientist Bill Gates, of a non-peer-reviewed test for the infection. The
test's chief characteristic is that its rate of positives to negatives depends on the number of
cycles through which the sample is run. More cycles, more positives. Hence, every test result
is a "soft" number. Second, the WHO and associated national organizations like the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control reported COVID's spread by another "soft" number: "confirmed cases." That
is, sick persons who tested positive for the virus.
When this number is related to that of such persons who then die, the ratio -- somewhat
north of 5 percent -- suggests that COVID kills one out of 20 people it touches. But that is an
even softer number since these deaths include those who die with COVID rather than of it, as
well as those who may have had COVID. Pyramiding such soft numbers, mathematical modelers
projected millions of deaths. Scary for the unwary, but pure fantasy.
For example, the U.S. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), which modeled the
authoritative predictions on which the U.S. lockdowns were based, also predicted COVID-19
deaths for Sweden, which did not lock down. On May 3, the IHME predicted that Sweden would
suffer 2,800 COVID deaths a day within the next two weeks. The actual number was 38. Reporting
on COVID has never ceased to consist of numbers as scary as they are soft.
Literate persons know that, once an infectious disease enters a population, nothing can
prevent it from infecting all of it, until a majority has developed antibodies after
contracting it -- so-called community immunity or herd immunity. But fear leads people to
empower those who promise safety, regardless of how empty the promises. The media pressed
governments to do something . The Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan screamed: "don't panic is
terrible advice." The pharmaceutical industry and its Wall Street backers salivated at the
prospect of billions of government money for new drugs and vaccines. Never mind the little
sense it makes for millions of people to accept a vaccine's non-trivial risk to protect against
a virus with trivial consequences for themselves. All manner of officials yearned to wield
unaccountable power.
Because the power to crush the general population's resistance to itself is the oligarchy's
single-minded focus, it was able to bend fears of COVID to that purpose. Thus, it gathered more
power with more consequences than the oligarchs could have imagined.
But only President Trump's complaisance made this possible. His message to the American
people had been not to panic, be mindful of the scientific facts -- you can't stop it, and it's
not that bad -- while mitigating its effects on vulnerable populations. But on March 15, Trump
bent, and agreed to counsel people to suspend normal life for two weeks to "slow the spread,"
so that hospitals would not be overwhelmed. Two weeks later, the New York Times crowed that
Trump, having been told "hundreds of thousands of Americans could face death if the country
reopened too soon," had been stampeded into "abandoning his goal of reopening the country by
Easter." He agreed to support the "experts'" definition of what "soon" might mean. By
accrediting the complex of government, industry, and media's good faith and expertise, Trump
validated their plans to use COVID as a vehicle for enhancing their power.
Having seized powers, the oligarchs used them as weapons to disrupt and disaggregate the
parts of American society they could not control.
The economic effects of lockdowns and social distancing caused obvious pain. Tens of
millions of small businesses were forced to close or radically to reduce activity. More than 40
million Americans filed claims for unemployment assistance. Uncountable millions of farmers and
professionals had their products and activities devalued. Millions of careers, dreams that had
been realized by lifetimes of work, were wrecked. Big business and government took over their
functions. Within nine months, COVID-19 had produced 28 new billionaires .
Surplus and scarcity of food resulted simultaneously because the lockdowns closed most
restaurants and hotels. As demand shifted in ways that made it impossible for distribution
networks and processing plants to adjust seamlessly, millions of gallons of milk were poured
down drains, millions of chickens, billions of eggs, and tens of thousands of hogs and cattle
were destroyed, acres of vegetables and tons of fruit were plowed under. Prices in the markets
rose. Persons deprived of work with less money with which to pay higher prices struggled to
feed their families. This reduced countless self-supporting citizens to supplicants. By
intentionally reducing the supply of food available to the population, the U.S. government
joined the rare ranks of such as Stalin's Soviet Union and Castro's Cuba.
But none of these had ever shut down a whole nation's entire medical care except for one
disease. Hospitals stood nearly empty, having cleared the decks for the (ignorantly) expected
COVID flood. Emergency rooms were closed to the poor people who get routine care there. Forget
about dentistry. Most Americans were left essentially without medical care for most of a year.
Human bodies' troubles not having taken a corresponding holiday, it is impossible to estimate
how much suffering and death this lack of medical care has caused and will cause yet.
The oligarchy's division of all activity into "essential" -- meaning permitted -- and
"nonessential" -- to be throttled at will -- had less obvious but more destructive effects.
Private clubs, as well as any and all gatherings of more than five or 10 people, were banned.
Churches were forbidden to have worship services or to continue social activities. The "social
distancing" and mask mandates enforced in public buildings and stores, and often on the
streets, made it well-nigh impossible for people to communicate casually. Thus, was that part
of American society that the oligarchy did not control directly disarticulated, and its members
left alone to face unaccountable powers on which they had to depend.
Meanwhile, the media became the oligarchy's public relations department. Very much including
ordinary commercial advertising, it hammered home the oligarchy's line that COVID restrictions
are good, even cool. These restrictions reduced the ideas available to the American people to
what the mass media purveyed and the social media allowed. Already by April 2020, these used
what had become near-monopoly power over interpersonal communications to censor such
communications as they disapproved. Political enforcers took it upon themselves even to cancel
statements by eminent physicians about COVID that they judged to be "misleading." Of course,
this betrayed the tech giants' initial promise of universal access. It is also
unconstitutional. (In Marsh v. Alabama , decided in 1946, the
Supreme Court barred private parties from acting as de facto governments). Since these
companies did it in unison, they also violated the 1890 Sherman Antitrust Act. But the ruling
class that had become an oligarchy applauded their disabling whatever might be conducive to
conservatives' interests and inconvenient to their own candidates.
Private entities wielding public powers in coordination with each other without having to
observe any of government's constitutional constraints is as good a definition of oligarchy as
there is. Oligarchy had increasingly taken power in the buildup to the 2020 election. In its
aftermath, it would try to suffocate America.
Sovereignty of the Vote Counters
The oligarchy's proximate objective, preventing the 2020 presidential election from
validating the previous one's results, overrode all others. The powers it had seized under
COVID's cover, added to the plethora that it had exercised since the 2016 campaign's beginning,
had surely cowered some opposition. But as November 2020 loomed, no one could be sure how much
it also had energized.
Few people were happy to be locked down. It was a safe bet that not a few were unhappy at
being called systemically racist. The oligarchy, its powers notwithstanding, could not be sure
how people would vote. That is why it acted to take the presidential election's outcome out of
the hands of those who would cast the votes and to place it as much as possible in the hands of
its members who would count the votes.
Intentionally, traditional procedures for voting leave no discretion to those who count the
votes. Individuals obtain and cast ballots into a physical or electronic box only after showing
identification that matches their registration. Ballot boxes are opened and their contents
counted by persons representing the election's opposing parties. Persons registered to vote
might qualify to vote-by-mail by requesting a ballot, the issuance and receipt of which is
checked against their registration. Their ballots are counted in the same bipartisan
manner.
The Democratic Party had long pressed to substitute universal voting by mail -- meaning that
ballots would be sent to all registered voters, in some states to anyone with a driver's
license whether they asked for them or not and regardless of whether these persons still lived
at the address on the rolls or were even alive. The ballots eventually would arrive at the
counting centers, either through the mail, from drop boxes, or through "harvesters" who would
pick them up from the voters who fill them out, and who may even help them to fill them out.
Security, if any, would consist of machine-matching signatures on the ballot and on the
envelope in which it had come. The machine's software can be dialed to greater or lesser
sensitivity.
But doing away with scrutiny of ballots counted by representatives of the election's
contenders removes the last possibility of ensuring the ballot had come from a real person
whose will it is supposed to represent. Once the link between the ballot and the qualified
person is broken, nothing prevents those in charge of the electoral process from excluding and
including masses of ballots as they choose. The counters become the arbiters.
Attorney General William Barr pointed out the obvious: Anyone, in America or abroad, can
print up any number of ballots, mark them, and deliver them for counting to whoever is willing
to accept them and run them through their machines. Since the counters usually dispose of the
envelopes in which ballots arrive -- thus obviating any possibility of tracing the ballot's
connection to a voter -- they may even dispense of the fiction that there had ever been any
signed envelopes. That is especially true of late-found ballots. Who knows where they came
from? Who cares to find out?
Only in a few one-party Democratic states was universal vote-by-mail established by law.
Elsewhere, especially in the states sure to be battlegrounds in the presidential election,
mail-in voting was introduced by various kinds of executive or judicial actions. Questions of
right and wrong aside, the Constitution's Article II section 1's words -- "Each State shall
appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct " -- makes such actions
unconstitutional on their face. Moreover, in these states -- Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Wisconsin -- the counting of votes in the most populous counties is firmly in the hands of
Democratic Party bosses with a well-documented history of fraud.
To no one's surprise, the 2020 presidential election was decided by super-majorities for the
Democratic candidate precisely from these counties in these states. Yes, Trump's percentage of
the vote fell in certain suburbs. But Trump received some 11 million more votes in 2020 than
four years earlier, and nearly doubled the share of votes he received from blacks. The
Democrats' gain of some 15 million votes came exclusively from mail-in ballots, and their
victory in the Electoral College came exclusively from the supermajorities piled up in these
corrupt counties -- the only places where Trump's share of the black vote was cut by
three-quarters. Did people there really think so differently?
This is not the place to recount the list of affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury by
persons who observed ballot stuffing, nor the statistical anomaly of successive batches of
votes that favored Biden over Trump by precisely the same amounts, of un-creased (i.e., never
mailed) ballots fed into counting machines, nor the Georgia video of suitcases of ballots being
taken from under tables and inserted into counting machines after Republican observers had been
ousted. Suffice it to note that references to these events have been scrubbed from the
Internet. It is more important to keep in mind that, in America prior to 2020, sworn affidavits
that crimes have been committed had invariably been probable cause for judicial, prosecutorial,
or legislative investigations. But for the first time in America, the ruling class dismissed
them with: "You have no proof!" A judge (the sister of Georgia's Stacey Abrams) ruled that even
when someone tells the U.S. Postal Service they have moved, their old address is still a lawful
basis for them to cast a ballot. Certainly, proof of crime is impossible with such judges and
without testimony under oath, or powers of subpoena.
Just as important, Republicans in general and the Trump White House in particular bear heavy
responsibility for failing to challenge the patent illegality of the executive actions and
consent decrees that enabled inherently insecure mail-in procedures in real-time, as they were
being perpetrated in key states. No facts were at issue. Only law. The constitutional
violations were undeniable.
Pennsylvania et. al. answered Texas's late lawsuit by arguing it demanded the invalidation
of votes that had been cast in good faith. True. But Texas argued that letting stand the
results of an election carried out contrary to the Constitution devalued the votes cast in
states such as Texas that had held the election in a constitutional manner. Also true. Without
comment, the Supreme Court chose to privilege the set of voters on the oligarchy's side over
those of their opponents. Had the lawsuit come well before the election, no such choice would
have existed. Typically, the Trump Administration substituted bluster for action.
The
Oligarchy Rides its Tigers
Winning the 2020 election had been the objective behind which the oligarchy had coalesced
during the previous five years. In 2021, waging socio-political war on the rest of America is
what the oligarchy is all about.
The logic of hate and disdain of ordinary Americans is not only what binds the oligarchy
together. It is the only substitute it has for any moral-ethical-intellectual point of
reference. Donald Trump's impotent, inglorious reaction to his defeat offered irresistible
temptations to the oligarchy's several sectors to celebrate victory by vying to hurt whoever
had supported the president. But permanent war against some 74 million fellow citizens is a
foredoomed approach to governing.
The Democratic Party had promised a return to some kind of "normalcy." Instead, its victory
enabled the oligarchy's several parts to redefine the people who do not show them due deference
as "white supremacists," "insurrectionists," and Nazis -- in short, as some kind of criminals
-- to exclude them from common platforms of communication, from the banking system, and perhaps
even from air travel; and to set law enforcement to surveil them in order to find bases for
prosecuting them. Neither Congress nor any state's legislature legislated any of this. Rather,
the several parts of America's economic, cultural, and political establishment are waging this
war, uncoordinated but well-nigh unanimously.
Perhaps most important, they do so without thought of how a war against at least some 74
million fellow citizens might end. The people in the oligarchy's corporate components seem to
want only to adorn unchallenged power with a reputation for "wokeness." For them, causing pain
to their opponents is a pleasure incidental to enjoying power's perquisites. The Biden family's
self-enrichment by renting access to influence is this oligarchy's standard.
But the people who dispense that reputation -- not just the professional revolutionaries of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter, but "mainstream" racial and gender activists and self-appointed
virtue-crats, have appetites as variable as they are insatiable. For them, rubbing conservative
America's faces in excrement is what it's all about. A Twitter video viewed by 2.6 million
people urges them to form "an army of citizen detectives" to ferret out conservatives from
among teachers, doctors, police officers, and "report them to the authorities." No doubt,
encouraged by President Biden's characterization of opponents as "domestic terrorists," any
number of "authorities" as well as private persons will find opportunities to lord it over
persons not to their taste. This guarantees endless clashes, and spiraling violence.
Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, and the people they appoint to positions of official
responsibility are apparatchiks, habituated to currying favor and pulling rank. They have
neither the inclination nor the capacity to persuade the oligarchy's several parts to agree to
a common good or at least to a modus vivendi among themselves, never mind with conservative
America. This guarantees that they will ride tigers that they won't even try to dismount.
At this moment, the oligarchy wields an awesome complex of official and unofficial powers to
exclude whomever it chooses from society's mainstream. Necessarily, however, exclusions cut
both ways. Invariably, to banish another is to banish one's self as well. Google, Facebook, and
Twitter let it be known that they would exclude anything with which they disagree from what had
become the near-universal means of communication. They bolstered that by colluding to destroy
their competitor, Parler. Did they imagine that 74 million Americans could find no means of
communicating otherwise? Simon and Schuster canceled a book by Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.)
critical of communications monopolies. Did its officials imagine that they would thereby do
other than increase the book's eventual sales, and transfer some of their customers to Hawley's
new publisher ? The media effectively suppressed inconvenient news. Did they imagine that
this would prevent photos of Black Lives Matter professionals in the forefront of the January 6
assault on the U.S. Capitol from reaching the public?
In sum, intending to relegate conservative America to society's servile sidelines, the
oligarchy's members drew a clear, sharp line between themselves and that America. By telling
conservative Americans "these institutions and corporations, are ours, not yours," they freed
conservative America of moral obligations toward them and themselves. By abandoning
conservative America, they oblige conservative America to abandon them and seek its own
way.
Clarity, Leadership, and Separation
To think of conservative America's predicament as an opportunity is as hyperbolic as it was
for Machiavelli to begin the conclusion of The Prince by observing that "in order to know
Moses' virtue it was necessary that the people of Israel be slaves in Egypt, and to know the
greatness of Cyrus's spirit that the Persians be oppressed by the Medes, and to know the
excellence of Theseus, that the Athenian people be dispersed, so at the present, in order to
know the virtue of an Italian spirit it was necessary that Italy reduce herself to the
conditions in which she is at present . . ."
Machiavelli's lesson is that the clarity of situations such as he mentions, and such as is
conservative America's following the 2020 election, is itself valuable. Clarity makes illusions
of compromise untenable and points to self-reliant action as the only reasonable path. The
people might or might not be, as he wrote, "all ready and disposed to follow the flag if only
someone were to pick it up." But surely, someone picking up the flag is the only alternative to
servitude.
What, in conservative America's current predicament, might it mean to "pick up the flag?"
Electoral politics remains open to talented, courageous, ambitious leadership. In Florida and
South Dakota, Governors Ron DeSantis and Kristi Noem have used their powers to make room for
ways of life different from and more attractive than that in places wholly dominated by the
oligarchy. Texas and Idaho as well attract refugees from such as California and New York by
virtue of such differences with life there as their elected officials have been able to
maintain. Governmental and corporate pressures on such states to conform to the oligarchy's
standards, sure to increase, are opportunities for their officials to lead their people's
refusal to conform by explaining why doing this is good, and by personally standing in the way.
They may be sure that President Kamala Harris would not order federal troops to shoot at state
officials for closing abortion clinics or for excluding men from women's bathrooms.
For more than a generation, a majority of Americans have expressed growing distrust of, and
alienation from, the establishment. The establishment, not Donald Trump, made this happen. That
disparate majority, in many ways at cross purposes with itself, demands leadership. Pollster
Patrick Caddell's in-depth study of the American electorate, which he titled "We Need Smith," showed how the themes that
made it possible for the hero of the 1939 movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" to prevail
against the establishment then are even more gripping now and appeal to a bigger majority.
Trump was a bad copy of Mr. Smith.
More than ever, an audience beyond the 74 million Americans who voted for Trump hungers for
leadership. The oligarchy came together by ever more vigorously denigrating and suppressing
these deplorables. Already before the 20th century's turn, the FBI and some elements in the
Army and the Justice Department had concluded that they are somehow criminal, and that
preparations should be made to treat them as such. The official position of the administration
taking power after the 2020 election is that domestic terrorism from legions of "white
supremacists" is the primary threat facing America. No wonder those so designated for outlawry
demand protection.
The path to electoral leadership is straightforward. Whoever would lead the deplorables-plus
must explain their cause to friend and foe, make it his own, and grow it by leading successful
acts of resistance.
Increasingly, conservative Americans live as if under occupation by a hostile power. Whoever
would lead them should emulate Charles de Gaulle's 1941 basic rule for la résistance :
refrain from individual or spontaneous acts or expressions that produce only martyrs. But join
with thousands in what amount to battles to defeat the enemy's initiatives, weaken his grip on
power, and prepare his defeat. Thus, an aspirant to the presidency in 2024, in the course of
debunking the narrative by which the oligarchy seized so much power over America, might lead
millions to violate restrictions placed on those who refuse to wear masks. Or, as he pursues
legislative and judicial measures to abolish the compulsory racial and gender sensitivity
training sessions to which public and private employees are subjected, he might organize
employees in a given sector unanimously to stay away from them in protest. They can't all be
fired or held back.
Such a persuasive prospective president, or president, could finish the process that,
beginning circa 2010, initiated the process of reshaping the Republican Party into something
like Caddell's Mr. Smith would have personified.
Electoral politics, however, is the easy part. Major corporations, private and semi-private
institutions such as schools, publishing houses, and media, are the oligarchy's deepest
foundations. These having become hostile, conservative Americans have no choice but to populate
their own. This is far from impossible.
Sorting ourselves out into congenial groups has been part of America's DNA since 1630, when
Roger Williams led his followers out of Massachusetts to found Providence Plantations. In the
19th century, the Mormons left unfriendly environments to establish their own settlements.
Since 1973, Americans who believe in unborn children's humanity have largely ceased to
intermarry with those who do not. Nobody decided this should happen. It is in the logic of
diverging cultures.
As American primary and secondary education's dysfunction became painfully apparent, parents
of all races have fled the public schools as fast as they could. Businesses have been fleeing
the Rust Belt for the Sun Belt for generations. When Democratic governors and mayors used COVID
to make life difficult in their jurisdictions, people moved out of them. When Twitter's
censorship of conservatives became undeniable, Parler added customers by the hundreds of
thousands each day. Facebook and Twitter's stock lost $50 billion in a week. Much more
separation follows from the American people's diverging cultures.
As conservative America sorts itself out from oligarchy's social bases, it may be able to
restore something like what had existed under the republic. Effectively, two regimes would have
to learn to coexist within our present boundaries. But that may be the best, freest,
arrangement possible now for the United States.
Highly recommend the Przeworski piece at Phenomenal World. Most of it is reflections on/by 3
European leftist leaders from the 1970s-80s (German Prime Chancellor Willy Brandt, Austrian
Chancellor Bruno Kreisky, and Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme) about how the oil shocks and
associated economic changes of the era presented a challenge to social democrats –
including ending the belief/fantasy that reformism could be system-changing – that they
(we) were not then, and I would argue still are not, able to address.
Palme spells out the difficulty:
"We told the people who were already enjoying a prosperous situation that things would be
much better for their children and that we would be able to solve the outstanding problems.
[But the new situation] presents a much more difficult task to fulfill. Because from the
moment there is no longer a constant surplus to be distributed, the question of distribution
is appreciably more difficult to resolve."
Brand echoes these concerns, noting that it is essential to prevent inequality from
increasing as growth resumes. Eighteen months later, during another in person meeting on 25
May 1975, Kreisky makes the fiscal constraint even more explicit: "It is precisely now that
reforms should be made. It is just a question which. If we strongly develop social policies,
we will not be able to finance them."
Also included an amazing graph of declining electoral support for left/SD parties in
Europe.
There was and is no great "American democracy" to be restored after Trump. As the
mainstream political scientists Martin Gilens (Princeton) and Benjamin Page (Northwestern) had
shown six years into Barack Obama's presidency, the nation had for many decades become
"an oligarchy" where wealthy "elites" and their corporations "rule" and
"ordinary citizens have virtually no
influence over what their government does."
That was clear during Obama's corporatist "Hope" and "Change" presidency,
which gave Americans what commentator William Greider memorably called "a blunt lesson about
power, who has it and who doesn't." Americans, Greider wrote , "watched
Washington rush to rescue the very financial interests that caused the catastrophe. They
learned that government has plenty of money to spend when the right people want it. 'Where's my
bailout,' became the rueful punch line at lunch counters and construction sites
nationwide." Then Americans beheld Obama embrace "entitlement reform" (nice-sounding
cover for attacking Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security benefits) and pass a health
insurance reform (the so-called Affordable Care Act) that only the big insurance and drug
companies could love.
The Biden team has no more intention of acting sincerely on the Democratic Party's standard
manipulative populist-sounding campaign rhetoric in the wake of the Trump nightmare and the
2020-21 Covid-19 Recession than did the Obama White House in the wake of the George W. Bush
nightmare and the 2007-08 Great Recession.
Biden's cabinet picks are loaded with neoliberal center-right operatives
inherited from the fake-progressive Obama administration. They hail from the same Wall
Street backgrounds and corporate and imperial think tanks that
staffed the George HW Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama
administrations.
The "diversity" that CNN and MSNBC applaud in Biden's cabinet and agency picks is all
about the race, ethnicity, and gender of his elections. It does not extend to ideology to
include genuinely progressive Democrats in the mold of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez. Under the faux-transformative cloak of identity, these are ruling-class
personnel trained and doctrinally committed to oppose the decent, humane, progressive,
social-democratic, and environmentally sane policies favored by the nation's silenced progressive
majority -- Single Payer health insurance, seriously progressive taxation, the abolition of
parasitic student debt, free public college, a doubling of the federal minimum wage, the
re-legalization of union organizing, and a planet-saving Green New Deal. As liberals fawn over
the many female, nonwhite, and gay people holding top positions, the Biden administration will
be a monument to the persistent rule of the nation's un-elected and interrelated dictatorships
of money and empire.
This follows in accord with the near-octogenarian Biden's promise to super-wealthy campaign
donors at a posh Manhattan hotel last year. Pledging not to "demonize anybody who has made
money," Biden told a gathering of tuxedo-wearing financial parasites that the rich were not
to blame for the nation's savage inequalities (so extreme that the top tenth of the upper US
One Percent had more wealth than the nation's bottom 90 percent by the end of the Obama years).
"Nothing will fundamentally change" and nobody's wealth or income would have to be
reduced if he became president, Biden
said . "I need you badly," he added.
njab 18 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:58 AM
What exactly is "left"? The author doesn't talk about being "anti-war" for example. And
frankly, some of the "left" policies, especially related to LGBQXYZ, I find abhorrent. What
is needed is neither "left" nor "right" but something that benefits the MAJORITY of the
population and not just a few fringe groups.
Ohhho HypoxiaMasks 12 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 03:11 PM
Americans is the most confused nation on Earth! They confuse plutocracy with democracy,
propaganda with news, debt with wealth, individualism with freedom, corruption with
influencing, bullying with leading, war with peace and looting with help!
ColdFacts 1justssayn 4 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:22 PM
trump is fake anti-establishment, he had 4 years and did not pardon Assange or Snowden, did
not expose corrupt elites, he did not declassify anything "interesting", even now with
exposed election fraud all he did was to file some pseudo lawsuits which were dismissed by
corrupt establishment owned courts.
rubyvolt 16 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 10:41 AM
'MuriKKKa is run by those who OWN it. Their muscle is the US military. Its fodder, the
citizens. The PEOPLE of this nation have no say and can't get into the streets as most of us
have been so poisoned and brainwashed that independent thought is not possible.
jjikss 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:03 PM
There is no such thing as "democratic empire". You either believe that majority decides or
you believe that power decides. America is undoubtedly an empire ( over 600 offshore military
bases), so the democracy part is just a form of " double think" that comes straight from
George Orwell's vision.
Vikiiing 19 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:08 AM
The election process could be fixed to be fair but neither party wants that. US elections
could be modelled after any scandanavian system to get rid of corruption, but there's big
money to be made keeping it corrupt.
DeadRassputin 8 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:05 PM
The working class elected Trump as an outsider in the hope he could curb the corruption that
was becoming apparent in the Federal Government. Second term they tried to elect him again,
however the career politicians were having none of that. MSM propaganda blitz plus social
media censorship added to unverifiable mail in ballots, and rigged counting machines sealed
the deal.
Khanlenin DeadRassputin 7 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:42 PM
Even though he never stopped stuffing millions into the pockets of the super rich, he did
offer some improvement to the economic conditions of the working classes which had been
stagnating since the 1970's Obama and Clinton had made sure any improvements in productivity
and technology were all going to benefit the top financial elites. Having an unstable ego, he
kept throwing grenades at everything he didn't understand. In the case of Iranian government
officials, the grenades were real
Khanlenin DeadRassputin 7 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 07:42 PM
Even though he never stopped stuffing millions into the pockets of the super rich, he did
offer some improvement to the economic conditions of the working classes which had been
stagnating since the 1970's Obama and Clinton had made sure any improvements in productivity
and technology were all going to benefit the top financial elites. Having an unstable ego, he
kept throwing grenades at everything he didn't understand. In the case of Iranian government
officials, the grenades were real
Joaquin Montano 12 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:54 PM
"There's no great 'American democracy' to be restored after Trump, ..." We used to say
"America is the best democracy money can buy". Not even that anymore. It is so disfunctional
it isn't worth the money ...
westernman 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 02:29 PM
Some 40 trillion dollars that the rich are stashing away in offshore fictitious bank accounts
if taxed even at 1% will more than pay for all social services like single payer health
insurance, student loan forgiveness, free college education and much much more. Correct Obama
was a faux progressive, he would take one step forward and two back. I agree that Biden seems
to be painting a diverse race cabinet portfolio but skin color is no guarantee at all of pro
working people ideologies.
Hasse1 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 12:59 PM
In reality (with hard evidence) Trump is NO different from his predecessors. In fact, if you
compared him with other U.S. presidents, Trump was less violent and caused the death of less
people than Clinton, Bush, Obama or Biden. Just to mention the latest few.
Khanlenin Bill Spence 6 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 08:57 PM
"general welfare" or "the welfare of the generals" You're correct. When ordinary citizens
opposed the invasion of Iraq, they showed that they did not have the expertise needed to make
the decisions in the best interest of the welfare of the generals (or Standard Oil).
czerenkob 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:40 PM
In the USA democracy is talked about, but not practiced.
SheepNotHuman 9 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 06:14 PM
Democracy a dreamy concept for children only. There is no such thing as Democracy when money
buys the elections and votes remain secretive. America was never a Democracy, from day one
it's a fraud. The first president old George Washington was a blood relative of the UK Royals
and his 50 secret society brothers set up America for 200 + years of fraud. Guess what, the
royals still run things folks. We on the other hand will only be remembered as man or woman
if we turn a blind eye to truth and care nothing for honesty. Some less than human! Now as
people catch on to the facts that they have been played their whole life long while they
pretend and live in the matrix the Deep State must act to clean us out. It's called Agenda
2030 schemed up by the evil WEF. Don't get tested and don't get vaccinated. Now my awakened
ones it's your turn!
shadow1369 15 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:48 AM
The US haas been mythologising its nature from day one, all is fraud and pretence there.
Ohhho 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:15 PM
All of it is just a bunch of nonsense by a naive American. All that "great republic" and
"democracy" garbage! Their dear POTUSes are just puppets to the Global financial oligarchy
that "bought them all and in the darkness bound them"! So they underestimated Trump and let
him slip by, big deal! Everything is back to normal baby, hallelujah!
athineos Ohhho 13 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:50 PM
Correct! US has been an Oligarchy since it's Founding when the theft and rape of the land of
the INDIGENOUS AMERICAN PEOPLE by the European Colonizers was being undertaken to benefit the
few as always. Now it has moved into its advanced cancerous stage where the middle class will
be completely assimilated into the poor class to bring about the New Feudal era of the NEW
WORLD ORDER.
Sovietski 10 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 05:18 PM
Biden's sole election slogan/promise has been: "I'm not Trump" He's a millionaire and
4-decade career political dinosaur. Of course nothing will change!
The_Chosenites 14 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 01:03 PM
Biden will spend most of his time as the Donald did. It will be Biden the Blind lead around
by his Israelis guide dog Bibi. Biden will be consumed with middle east policy and defeating
the enemies of Israel, allowing Israels continued expansionist policies. The American people
may have lost the election but there is always a clear winner!
IslandT 3 hours ago 20 Dec, 2020 11:45 PM
Trump administration is a complete failure, when Trump comes to power he has basically
started war on so many fronts and attacks so many swamp people which is the main reason why
so many top level people hate him and causes him to lost the presidency! The swamp in US
senate is simply too deep and there is nothing Trump can do about it, when he leaves the
office, the swamp people will come back and continue their party, those generals or officials
Trump puts on the important positions will be overthrew by Joe Biden, those rules that set by
Trump will also get overwritten by Joe Biden, basically it is a complete waste of time for
Trump to do all those unproductive works. Also the Mexican-US border wall will also be
stopped under Biden as well. If both the democrat and republican not realize they need to
change then there is nothing much a President can do to change the entire situation. US is in
the ending stage of it's empire and we will see de dollarisation after Trump steps down,
think about this, what will happen if other nations want US to buy their currency with the US
gold reserves so the American can buy their raw material or finished product? How much gold
reserves does the US actually has and how much money does the US owns the foreign countries
and how much gold does the us has to pay to foreign nations if de dollarisation actually
happen? Do you people realize that Mike Pompeo has just turned into Swamp people as well,
there goes the last hope for the American!
"... In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on either side, Eric Zuesse writes. ..."
"... Mission accomplished ..."
"... Nice work, Mr. Putin. ..."
"... According to a US intelligence community report, Russia's chief goal in interfering in the 2016 election in support of Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton was to "undermine public faith in the US democratic process." Four years on, there have been two impeachments and an insurrection against the US legislature. Millions believe Trump's lies that he was illegally ejected from power, and doubt Biden's legitimacy. ..."
"... Conspiracy theorists have seats in Congress. There are serious questions about whether one of the country's great political parties is now anti-democratic. The Covid-19 pandemic exposed weaknesses in a federal system that grants vast power to the states. And America's self-appointed role as an exceptional nation and beacon of democracy is in the gutter. ..."
"... Most of the disorienting events of the last few years can be blamed directly on Trump and his particular skill at tearing at the social, racial and political divides that are just below the nation's surface. So the ex-KGB man in the Kremlin hardly deserves all the credit. But Russia, China and other autocratic nations are gaining much from Washington's agony. They're already using it to promote their own closed and totalitarian societies as models of comparative order and efficiency -- and to beat back brave local voices calling for democracy and human rights. ..."
"... In an effective declaration of victory for Russia's espionage offensive against the US more than four years ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of the Russian Parliament, slid home the knife. "Following the events that unfolded after the presidential elections, it is meaningless to refer to America as the example of democracy," he said. ..."
"... "We are on the verge of reevaluating the standards that are being promoted by the United States of America, that is exporting its vision of democracy and political systems around the world. Those in our country who love to cite their example as leading will also have to reconsider their views." ..."
In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on
either side, Eric Zuesse writes.
Throughout history, aristocrats, and their flaks such as their 'news'-media, cast blame
downward, away from themselves who collectively control the government, and onto, instead, some
minority or other mass group, who can't even plan or function together so as to be
able to control the government.
The U.S. has a two-Party aristocracy, as is clear from the "Open Secrets" list of the 100
biggest political donors in the 2020 U.S. Presidential and congressional campaigns, the
"2020 Top Donors to Outside Spending Groups" . Those are only these individuals' publicly
acknowledged expenditures, none of the dark political money, which, of course, is donated
secretly. At the top there, of the donors' lists, is Sheldon Adelson (who just died, on January
11th in California, and was buried in Israel), who spent far more than anyone in all of U.S.
history had ever spent in any campaign cycle, $215 million, which amount far exceeded even
the $82 million that he had spent in 2016,
which in 2016 was second only to Thomas Steyer's $92 million (the previous all-time highest
amount donated in any campaign year). Adelson gave exclusively to Republicans, whereas Steyer
gave exclusively to Democrats. Steyer in 2020 gave $67 million, which -- though he was running
for President in 2020, and hadn't been running in 2016 -- was only 73% of his 2016 donations,
in that year, when he had been the nation's top political donor. He was only the 5th-biggest
donor in 2020, instead of #1.
The second-biggest donor in 2020 was the liberal Republican Michael Bloomberg, who ran in
the Democratic Presidential primaries in order to defeat the only progressive in that contest,
who was Bernie Sanders. Bloomberg spent $151 million of his own funds for that purpose. In
2016, he had spent
$24 million in order to help Hillary Clinton beat Bernie Sanders, and then try to beat
Donald Trump.
The third-biggest in 2020 was Timothy Mellon, the son of Paul Mellon and grandson of
Andrew Mellon .
Timothy Mellon gave $70 million, all to Republicans.
In 2020, the top ten donors, collectively, spent $776 million to own their chunk of the U.S.
Government. The second group of ten (#s 11-20) donated only $187 million; and, so, the top
twenty together donated $963 million, just shy of $1 trillion. All 80 of the other top-100
donors, together, gave around $370 million, so that the total from all 100 was around
one-and-a-third trillion dollars. 47 gave to Republicans; 53 gave to Democrats.
The smallest publicly acknowledged donor among the top 100, Foster Friess , gave $2.4 million, all to
Republicans.
Most of these 100 donors are among America's approximately 700 billionaires; and, even the
ones who aren't are serving and doing business with the billionaires, and therefore are to some
extent dependent upon having good relations with them, not being enemies of any
billionaire. All of these 100 are, obviously, also dependent upon the governmental decisions
that the public officials whom they have purchased will be making, not only regarding
regulations and laws, but also regarding foreign policies. For example, Friess merged his
company into Affiliated Management Group, which "is a global asset management firm"
that "has grown to approximately $730 billion." Virtually all of the top 100 political
donors are internationally invested, and their personal wealth is therefore affected by
American foreign policies, in ways that the personal wealth of the rest of the population is
not.
When the U.S. invades a foreign country, or issues sanctions against a foreign country, it
benefits some American investors, not only in corporations such as Lockheed Martin and
ExxonMobil, but even in some foreign-headquartered corporations. America's spending around half of the entire world's military expenses
gives an enormous competitive boost to America's billionaires, which is paid for by all U.S.
taxpayers. It takes away money that would otherwise go toward the rest of the U.S. population
-- people who might even become crippled or killed by their military service for the benefit of
America's billionaires. Marketing this military service to thepublic, as "national defense" --
even at a time when no nation has invaded or even threatened to invade America after
1945 -- is good PR for America's wealthiest families, regardless of whether it's of any benefit
whatsoever to other Americans. Because of the success of this PR for the military, Americans
consider the U.S. military to
be America's best institution -- far higher than any other part of the U.S. Government or
any non-governmental institution, such as churches, the press, or the medical system. The U.S.
Department of Defense is, also, by far, the
most corrupt of all Departments of the U.S. federal Government . This fact is carefully
hidden from the U.S. public, so as to keep the public admiring the military.
Billionaires use their media, and their scholars, to point the finger of blame, for the
problems that the public does know about, anywhere else than against themselves; and, though
the billionaires have political differences amongst themselves, they are unified against the
public, so as to continue the gravy train that they all are on.
In order for the aristocracy not to be blamed for the many problems that they cause upon the
public, their first trick is to blame some minority or some other vulnerable mass within the
public. Or else to blame some 'enemy' country. But if and when such a strategy fails, then,
they and their media blame the middle class or "bourgeoisie," in order to fool the leftists,
and also they blame the "communists" and the poor, in order to fool the rightists. That's a
two-pronged PR strategy -- one to the left, and the other to the right. Since the aristocracy
is always, itself, fundamentally conservative, they would naturally rather blame the leftists
as being "communists," than to blame the middle class and poor, because to do the latter would
place the public's ideological focus on economic class, which then would threaten to expose the
billionaires themselves as being the actual economic "elite" who are the public's real enemy
(and as being the elite against which the propaganda should instead be focused). Blaming the
middle class and poor might work amongst their fellow-aristocrats, but if tried amongst the
public, it would present the danger of backfiring. Consequently, there is a return to the days
of Joseph R. McCarthy, but this time without communism. Thus, here is how the White House
correspondent for a Democratic Party 'news'-site, CNN, closed his 'news'-analysis, on January
14th, under the headline "Washington's
agony is a win for autocrats and strongmen" :
Mission accomplished
Nice work, Mr. Putin.
According to a US intelligence community report, Russia's chief goal in interfering in
the 2016 election in support of Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton was to "undermine public
faith in the US democratic process." Four years on, there have been two impeachments and an
insurrection against the US legislature. Millions believe Trump's lies that he was illegally
ejected from power, and doubt Biden's legitimacy.
Conspiracy theorists have seats in Congress. There are serious questions about whether
one of the country's great political parties is now anti-democratic. The Covid-19 pandemic
exposed weaknesses in a federal system that grants vast power to the states. And America's
self-appointed role as an exceptional nation and beacon of democracy is in the gutter.
Most of the disorienting events of the last few years can be blamed directly on Trump
and his particular skill at tearing at the social, racial and political divides that are just
below the nation's surface. So the ex-KGB man in the Kremlin hardly deserves all the credit.
But Russia, China and other autocratic nations are gaining much from Washington's agony.
They're already using it to promote their own closed and totalitarian societies as models of
comparative order and efficiency -- and to beat back brave local voices calling for democracy
and human rights.
In an effective declaration of victory for Russia's espionage offensive against the US
more than four years ago, Vyacheslav Volodin, the speaker of the lower house of the Russian
Parliament, slid home the knife. "Following the events that unfolded after the presidential
elections, it is meaningless to refer to America as the example of democracy," he
said.
"We are on the verge of reevaluating the standards that are being promoted by the United
States of America, that is exporting its vision of democracy and political systems around the
world. Those in our country who love to cite their example as leading will also have to
reconsider their views."
That's propaganda from "leftist" (i.e., Democratic Party) billionaires. A good example of an
independent American journalist who has been fooled by Republican Party billionaires to blame
some amorphous mass of "leftists" is Sara A. Carter's 12 January 2021 youtube "Rudy Giuliani talks big
tech censorship" , blaming America's problems on "the government," or "the bureacracy,"
and, of course, especially on Democrats. At 10:15 there, she said "My mother fled from
Cuba." Carter, as a conservative, is so obsessed with her visceral hatred of "communism," that
she interpreted America's dictatorship as being communists, instead of as being billionaires --
of both Parties: actually, fascists. In a two-Party fascist dictatorship , she fears the leftists. This is typical of
propagandists on the conservative side. But propagandists on the liberal side (such as the CNN
correspondent exemplified) are no better, just different.
Both propaganda-operations cast blame away from the real culprits.
In a two-Party dictatorship, the important truths are kept away from being publicized on
either side. What the public sees and hears, instead, is political theater, merely
tailored to different audiences.
In the reality the USA is not falling apart. It is neoliberalism that is falling apart and
this is just how common people feel during the collapse of neliberalism.
"79% of Americans think the US is falling apart" those not accounted for are possibly
homeless or illiterate and don't have the opportunity of putting their view forward.
RTaccount 1 day ago 15 Jan, 2021 02:22 PM
There will be no peace, no unity, and no prosperity. And there shouldn't be.
TheFishh RTaccount 1 day ago 15 Jan, 2021 03:38 PM
The US regimes past and present have worn out their bag of tricks. A magician is a con-man.
And the only way they can entertain and spellbind the crowd with their routines is if
everyone just ignores the sleight of hand. But people are starting to call the US out for the
tricks it is pulling, and that's where the magician's career ends.
SJMan333 23 hours ago 16 Jan, 2021 01:02 AM
America as a whole is now reaping the fruits of its decades of exceptionalism complex.
Through its propaganda machine, Americans as individuals and collectively as a society, have
been brainwashed into believing that laws, rules and basic human decency do not apply to
themselves. These are only sweetened poisons for them to shove down the throats of other
lesser countries, especially those in Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia ((bluntly
put, non-white countries)) when it suited America's global resource thievery and daylight
wealth grabbing. Habitualized into bullying every other countries with no resistance,
Americans are now showing their ugly faces on each other. The same exceptionalism delusion
"the laws apply to you, not me'' is driving every American (except the colored Americans
probably) to blame all the ills of the country on everyone else except himself. Nancy Pelosi
advocated total lock-down but treated herself to a total grooming in a hair saloon is just
one example. For the sins it has committed over the decades, I guess the time is right for
USA to have a dose of its own medicine. Except in this case, America never thought it
necessary to develop an antidote.
A Republic is, by definition, an oligarchy. We just refuse to acknowledge what it truly
is. Put some lipstick on the pig.
But ours is not a pure Republic because we do have democratic referendums all of the time
where the people get to make laws that a majority want. We need more of them.
We don't have any at the federal level but there is nothing that prohibits them. Under
Amendment 10 all powers not granted to the federal government are granted to the states and
the people . The implication is that powers left to the people can be exercised by
referendum. Referendums are really the only check on oligarchy.
"... Democrats decisively outraised their opponents, giving them a critical edge. Ossoff outraised Perdue by $138 million to $89 million while Warnock received $124 million to Loeffler's $92 million. With over 98% of the votes counted, Warnock has been declared the winner, with 50.6% of the vote. Ossoff, meanwhile, is all but assured of winning as well, and has already declared victory. ..."
"... Thus, both contests have conformed to political scientist Thomas Ferguson's "Golden Rule" of politics: that the party that spends the most almost always wins the election. Ferguson's 1995 thesis , "The Golden Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political Systems," argued that elections are essentially contests between rival big businesses and that the two political parties compete to serve those who pay them, not the public. Nearly 20 years later, a University of Princeton study of 1,779 policy issues found that, ..."
"... Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence." ..."
"... Data from the Center for Responsive Politics shows that, since 2000, the candidate spending the most money has won between 70% and 98% of their races in the House or Senate ..."
"... the real winners in this election were corporate America, who could not lose, whoever won. ..."
In order to beat GOP incumbents David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler in the Georgia Senate
elections, Democrats had to spend big, raising hundreds of millions of dollars in the
process.
The two Georgia Senate elections -- called today for the Democrats -- were easily the most
costly in history, amounting to nearly $830 million in total ($468 million for the race between
Democrat Joey Ossoff and Republican David Perdue and more than $361 million for the special
election between Democrat Rev. Raphael Warnock and Republican Kelly Loeffler.
The Democrats' massive war chest came in no small part from hefty contributions from
corporate America. According to data from the Center for
Responsive Politics , tech companies rallied around the Democratic challengers, plying the
two campaigns with millions of dollars. Alphabet Inc., Google's parent organization, was the
largest single source of funds, their PACs, shareholders, or employees donating almost $1
million to Ossoff's campaign alone with other big tech companies cracking his top ten, all with
hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations from the like of Apple, Microsoft, Amazon,
Facebook, and AT&T. The rest of the top ten were made up by universities.
The Republican candidates also relied on large corporations for much of their funding.
Perdue's biggest donors included Delta Airlines, Home Depot, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of
America, while Loeffler was generously supported by oil and chemical giant Koch Industries as
well as a number of financial institutions like Ryan LLC and Blackstone Group.
However, Democrats decisively outraised their opponents, giving them a critical edge.
Ossoff outraised Perdue by $138 million to $89 million while Warnock received $124 million to
Loeffler's $92 million. With over 98% of the votes counted, Warnock has been declared the
winner, with 50.6% of the vote. Ossoff, meanwhile, is all but assured of winning as well, and
has
already declared victory.
Thus, both contests have conformed to political scientist Thomas Ferguson's "Golden
Rule" of politics: that the party that spends the most almost always wins the election.
Ferguson's 1995 thesis , "The Golden
Rule: The Investment Theory of Party Competition and the Logic of Money-Driven Political
Systems," argued that elections are essentially contests between rival big businesses and that
the two political parties compete to serve those who pay them, not the public. Nearly 20 years
later, a University of Princeton
study of 1,779 policy issues found that,
Economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest
groups have little or no independent influence."
https://cdn.iframe.ly/oNuYTi0?v=1&app=1
Empirical evidence seems to support this notion. Data from the Center for
Responsive Politics shows that, since 2000, the candidate spending the most money has won
between 70% and 98% of their races in the House or Senate
The 2020 election was already by far the most expensive in history, even before the Georgia
numbers were added into the mix. The sums of $468 million and $361 million are comfortably
higher than any of those from two months ago, the most expensive of which was the $299 million
contest in North Carolina between Thom Tillis (Republican) and Cal Cunningham (Democrat).
Many were heralding the Democratic upset in Georgia as the start of a new era and a victory
against racism and hate. "The votes of Black people have been suppressed in this nation for a
very long time. This is the dawning of a new day," said Bernice King, daughter of
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Warnock, who will become the state's first black senator, agreed.
"Tonight we proved that with hope, hard work, and the people by our side, anything is possible
All of us have a choice to make; will we continue to divide, distract and dishonor one another,
or will we love our neighbors as we love ourselves?" he said in his victory speech.
Yet while corporations continue to have such an outsized role in funding both major
political parties, it is unclear whether substantive change is even possible. The debate over
whether this represents a victory for racial justice can be had, but what seems unmistakable is
that the real winners in this election were corporate America, who could not lose, whoever
won.
Feature photo | Senate candidate Jon Ossoff introduces President-elect Joe Biden in Atlanta,
Jan. 4, 2021, as he campaigns for Raphael Warnock and Ossoff. Carolyn Kaster | AP
"... It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia. ..."
"... Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power. ..."
"... The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity Politics. ..."
"... I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks. ..."
"... Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some position to mitigate. ..."
"... the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way, you merely throw his ballot in the trash. ..."
"... Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable mail in the lobby under the mailboxes. ..."
"... His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy. ..."
"... As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. ..."
"... inventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. ..."
"... The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious. ..."
"... Paper ballots as ascribed by Tulsi Gabbard legislation is the only safe option for elections. Kudos to Tulsi! ..."
"... Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless, coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters. ..."
"... Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents in history. ..."
"... Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of slavery. ..."
"... Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced, lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump says," I really don't know anything about them." ..."
"... "I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering, corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp! ..."
A few months ago it looked like the re-election of Trump was almost certain, but now there was a close race between Trump
and Biden? What happen during the last months?
In the months before the election, the Democrats used the "Covid pandemic" to put in place voting by mail. The argument was used
that people who safely go to supermarkets and restaurants could catch Covid if they stood in voting lines. Never before used on a
large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
There are many credible reports of organized vote fraud committed by Democrats. The only question is whether the Republican establishment
will support challenging the documented fraud or whether Trump will be pressured to concede in order to protect the reputation of
American Democracy.
It is difficult to know or to ensure that the ballots are actual ballots from registered voters. For example in the early
hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped out Trump's lead. State officials
have reported that people not registered -- probably illegals -- were permitted to vote. Postal service workers have reported being
ordered to backdate ballots that suddenly appeared in the middle of the night after the deadline. These techniques were used to erase
Trump's substantial leads in the states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Digital technology has also made it easy to alter vote counts. US Air Force General Thomas McInerney is familiar with this
technology. He says it was developed by the National Security Agency in order to interfere in foreign elections, but now is in the
hands of the CIA and was used to defeat Trump. Trump is considered to be an enemy of the military/security complex because of his
wish to normalize relations with Russia, thus taking away the enemy that justifies the CIA's budget and power.
People do not understand. They think an election has been held when in fact what has occurred is that massive vote fraud has been
used to effect a revolution against red state white America. Leaders of the revolution, such as Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,
are demanding a list of Trump supporters who are "to be held accountable." Calls are being made for the arrest of Tucker Carlson,
the only mainstream journalist who supported President Trump.
In a recent column I wrote:
"Think what it means that the entirety of the US media, allegedly the 'watchdogs of democracy,' are openly involved in participating
in the theft of a presidential election.
"Think what it means that a large number of Democrat public and election officials are openly involved in the theft of a presidential
election.
"It means that the United States is split irredeemably. The hatred for white people that has been cultivated for many years,
portraying white Americans as "systemic racists," together with the Democrats' lust for power and money, has destroyed national
unity. The consequence will be the replacement of rules with force."
Mainstream media in Europe claim, that Trump had "divided" the United States. But isn`t it actually the other way around,
that his opponents have divided the country?
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism , the European and US media speak with
one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies. Russiagate
was a CIA/FBI successful effort to block Trump from reducing tensions with Russia. In 1961 in his last address to the American people
President Dwight Eisenhower warned that the growing power of the military/industrial complex was a threat to American democracy.
We ignored his warning and now have security agencies more powerful than the President.
The military/security complex favors the disunity that the Democrat Party and media have fostered with their ideology of Identity
Politics. Identity politics replaced Marxist class war with race and gender war. White people, and especially white heterosexual
males, are the new oppressor class. This ideology causes race and gender disunity and prevents any unified opposition to the security
agencies ability to impose its agendas by controlling explanations. Opposition to Trump cemented the alliance between Democrats,
media, and the Deep State.
It is possible that the courts will decide who will be sworn into office at January 20, 2021. Do you except a phase of uncertainty
or even a constitutional crisis?
There is no doubt that numerous irregularities indicate that the election was stolen and that the ground was well laid in advance.
Trump intends to challenge the obvious theft. However, his challenges will be rejected in Democrat ruled states, as they were part
of the theft and will not indict themselves. This means Trump and his attorneys will have to have constitutional grounds for taking
their cases to the federal Supreme Court. The Republicans have a majority on the Court, but the Court is not always partisan.
Republicans tend to be more patriotic than Democrats, who denounce America as racist, fascist, sexist, imperialist. This patriotism
makes Republicans impotent when it comes to political warfare that could adversely affect America's reputation. The inclination of
Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election. Republicans fear the impact on America's reputation
of having it revealed that America's other major party plotted to steal a presidental election.
Red state Americans, on the other hand, have no such fear. They understand that they are the targets of the Democrats, having
been defined by Democrats as "racist white supremacist Trump deplorables."
The introduction of a report of the Heritage Foundation states that "the United States has a long and unfortunate history
of election fraud". Are the 2020 presidential elections another inglorious chapter in this long history?
This time the fraud is not local as in the past. It is the result of a well organized national effort to get rid of a president
that the Establishment does not accept.
Somehow you get the impression that in the USA – as in many European countries democracy is just a facade – or am I wrong?
You are correct. Trump is the first non-establishment president who became President without being vetted by the Establishment
since Ronald Reagan. Trump was able to be elected only because the Establishment thought he had no chance and took no measures to
prevent his election. A number of studies have concluded that in the US the people, despite democracy and voting, have zero input
into public policy.
Democracy cannot work in America because the money of the elite prevails. American democracy is organized in order to prevent
the people from having a voice. A political campaign is expensive. The money for candidates comes from interest groups, such as defense
contractors, Wall Street, the pharmaceutical industry, the Israel Lobby. Consequently, the winning candidate is indebted to his funders,
and these are the people whom he serves.
European mainstream media are portraying Biden as a luminous figure. Should Biden become president, what can be expected
in terms of foreign and security policy, especially in regard to China, Russia and the Middle East? I mean, the deep state and the
military-industrial complex remain surely nearly unchanged.
Biden will be a puppet, one unlikely to be long in office. His obvious mental confusion will be used either to rule through him
or to remove him on grounds of mental incompetence. No one wants the nuclear button in the hands of a president who doesn't know
which day of the week it is or where he is.
The military/security complex needs enemies for its power and profit and will be certain to retain the list of desirable foreign
enemies -- Russia, Iran, China, and any independent-inclined country in Latin America. Being at war is also a way of distracting
the people of the war against their liberties.
What the military/security complex might not appreciate is that among its Democrat allies there are some, such as Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are ideological revolutionaries. Having demonized red state America and got rid of Trump (assuming
the electoral fraud is not overturned by the courts), Ocasio-Cortez and her allies intend to revolutionize the Democrat Party and
make it a non-establishment force. In her mind white people are the Establishment, which we already see from her demands for a list
of Trump supporters to be punished.
I think I'm not wrong in assuming that a Biden-presidency would mean more identity politics, more political correctness
etc. for the USA. How do you see this?
Identity politics turns races and genders against one another. As white people -- "systemic racists" -- are defined as the oppressor
class, white people are not protected from hate speech and hate crimes. Anything can be said or done to a white American and it is
not considered politically incorrect.
With Trump and his supporters demonized, under Democrat rule the transition of white Americans into second or third class citizens
will be completed.
How do you access Trump's first term in office? Where was he successful and where he failed?
Trump spent his entire term in office fighting off fake accusations -- Russiagate, Impeachgate, failure to bomb Russia for paying
Taliban to kill American occupiers of Afghanistan, causing Covid by not wearing a mask, and so on and on.
That Trump survived all the false charges shows that he is a real person, a powerful character. Who else could have survived what
Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United States the media is known as "presstitutes"
-- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe. As a former Wall Street Journal editor, I say with complete
confidence that there is no one in the American media today I would have hired. The total absence of integrity in the Western media
is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
Never before used on a large scale, voting by mail is subject to massive vote fraud.
I would take it a little further and say that voting by mail is a method of vote fraud. The supposed safeguards are easily
circumvented, as some whistleblowers have illustrated with ballots being brought forth in large numbers after election day without
postmarks and postal workers being ordered to stamp them with acceptable postmarks.
It really seems to me that there would be no democrat majorities in Congress or in so many state legislatures without vote
fraud.
Worse than the fraud available with vote by mail is the voting of people normally who don't bother to vote. Think of how stupid
and uninformed that average American voter is. Now realize how much more stupid and uninformed the non-voter is, only now he votes.
However, the most likely source of fraud that is hard to detect, is ballot harvesting. This should be outlawed as it violates
the idea of a secret ballot. Somebody comes to the home of a disinterested voter and makes sure he votes (of course they will
never admit to hounding the person) and "helps" them with the ballot. If the voter cannot be cajoled into voting the correct way,
you merely throw his ballot in the trash.
I have little doubt that there have been massive "irregularities", particularly in the so-called battleground states, that
are at play in "stealing" the election.
...The favourite phrase these days is "no evidence of wide spread voter fraud". Let's break that down. Only 6 states have been
challenged for vote fraud. In the big scheme of things, 6 states is not wide spread, even if there is massive vote fraud within
those 6 states. That the vote fraud is not widespread, implies that some vote fraud is acceptable, and that the listener should
ignore it. Last and most importantly, in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony
and affidavits become evidence when supported by physical evidence. An affidavit with a photograph demonstrating the statement
would be evidence.
Another phrase is something like "election officials say they have seen no evidence of voter fraud". I have yet to hear a reporter
challenge the "seen no evidence of " part of the statement, regardless of the subject, by asking if the speaker had looked for
any evidence. They won't, because they know damn well no one has.
That is how the liars operate. Not so different from Rumsfeld's "plausible deniability".
Living in an urban setting I often had to visit apartment buildings. Without fail, there was always a pile of undeliverable
mail in the lobby under the mailboxes.
The envelopes were mostly addressed to people who had moved out or died. If ballots were sent to these people based on incorrect
voter rolls, then these too would likely have been left sitting on the floor or on a ledge for anyone to take.
It doesn't take a leap of faith to know what a Trump-hating leftist would do when no one is looking. This moral hazard was
intentionally created by Dems, who know that urban dwellers are transient and lean left politically.
Eisenhower is always lauded for his MIC warning. Frankly he ticks me off. Thanks for the warning AFTER you were in some
position to mitigate.
Ike's a mystery. Why did he NOT question Harry Truman's commitments to NATO, the UN, and all that rubbish? Ike was a WWII guy.
He knew Americans hated the UN in 1953 as much as they hated the League of Nations after WWI. But he let it all slide and get
bigger.
His farewell address was just flapdoodle; it wasn't really dredged up till the 70s. Eisenhower spent eight years spreading
tripwires and mines and then said "Watch out." Thanks buddy.
Well, agree on your points however, on the other side of the ledger, he never understood the stupidity of the Korean war (that
he could have ended) and majorly up-ramped CIA activities in all manner of regime change (bay of pigs anyone?). Almost a direct
path to our foreign policy now (and now domestic policy)
He did deploy the military assistance advisory group to Vietnam in 1955. This is considered the beginning of U.S. involvement
in the war. This allowed the French to moonwalk out the back door leaving us holding the bag. In fairness this was Johnson's war
however. Eisenhower did cut the military budget as a peace dividend to fund interstate system and other domestic projects. In
today political spectrum he would be considered a flaming liberal.
As the German newspaper editor Udo Ulfkotte revealed in his book, Bought Journalism, the European and US media speak
with one voice -- the voice of the CIA. The very profitable and powerful US military/security complex needs foreign enemies.
What intrigues me is the ultimate political goal of the UN and the WEF when they anticipate a single global government centered
at the UN and the absence of nation-states.
So what is the MIC going to do when there are no existential threats of competing nation-states? Or will the MIC re-engineer
religious wars between the various religious groups, secular and theological? It seems the aspirations of the WEF and its fellow
travellers preclude the occurrence of future armed conflicts.
Of course one needs capitalistic economies to produce the ordnance and materiels for the engineered social factions to war
with each other. Yet if the Greens have their way, there will be no mining period.
More likely is the possibility that none of them actually understand what they are doing. As Nassim Taleb is alleged to have
remarked, 99% of humans are stupid.
The total absence of integrity in the Western media is sufficient indication that the West is doomed.
It's because Western media is completely under the control of Jews, the world's foremost End Justifies Means people. The Fourth
Estate has become the world's most powerful Bully Pulpit. There are still a few good ones though, brave souls they are: Kim Strassel
of WSJ, Daniel Larison of The American Conservative , Neil Munro of Breitbart.
The rest are more or less lying scums, including everyone on NYTimes, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, MSNBC, Fox News (minus
Tucker Carlson and Maria Bartiromo), The Economist , and let's not forget the new media: Google, Facebook, Twitter. The
world would be a much better place without any of them.
@Beavertales
-- with either vote flipping on machines or having the totals that paper ballot scanners tabulate adjust via a pre-programmed
algorithm. Many elections have already been stolen this way.
Nancy Pelosi claims that Biden's victory gives the Democrats a "MANDATE" to alter the economy as they see fit with 50.5%.
This proves that Biden will NOT represent everyone – only the left! I have warned that this has been their agenda from day one.
Now, three whistleblowers from the Democratic software company Dominion Voting Systems, alleging that the company's software stole
38 million votes from Trump. There are people claiming that Dominion Voting Systems is linked to Soros, Dianae Finesteing, Clintons,
and Pelosi's husband. I cannot verify any of these allegations so far.
We are at the Rubicon. Civil War is on the other side. There should NEVER be this type of drastic change to the economy
from Capitalism to Marxism on 50.5% of the popular vote. NOBODY should be able to restructure the government and the economy on
less than 2/3rds of the majority. That would be a mandate. Trying to change everything with a claim of 50.5% of the vote will
only signal, like the Dread Scot decision, that there is no solution by rule of law. This is the end of civilization and it will
turn ugly from here because there is no middle ground anymore. As I have warned, historically the left will never tolerate opposition.
Yes, the theft is blatant. But what are you, us, going to do about it? We really can't do much as the Office of the President
Elect requires us to wear masks. For our safety.
"in the narrowest of legalistic terms, testimony or affidavits are not evidence. Testimony and affidavits become evidence when
supported by physical evidence. " Correct – but they also can become evidence by verbal testimony. ie "I saw the defendant hit
the victim with a rock"
Not only have they stolen the election but when Joe Biden and other democrats claim that President Trump caused the deaths
of hundreds of thousands of Americans because of his handling of Covid 19, they are in sane. No world leader could stop the spread
of this respiratory virus. However, Joe Biden and democrats have caused the deaths of hundreds of white people, while whipping
up weak minded people to kill many whites. Biden and the democrats are criminals. Any one who is white, man or woman, that supports
the democratic party is enabling a criminal organization to perpetrate violence on white people, including murder.
Since the article was from a German magazine it's understandable that there is no mention of "the one who shall not be named".
No mention of the people behind the Lawfare group, the same people behind the impeachment, the same people providing financial
and ideological support for the BLM/Antifa, the same people that own the media that spewed lies for 5 years and censored any mention
of the Biden family corruption, no mention of the people behind this Color Revolution, the same people who promoted the mail in
voting and those that managed the narrative for the media on election night to stop Trump's momentum.
For the public consumption the election will be described in vague terms, like this article, blaming special interests and
institutions like the FBI, CIA and MIC without naming names as if an institution, not the oligarchs and chosen pulling the strings,
are somehow Marxist, anti-white or anti-Christian.
The interviewer quotes the Heritage Foundation does anyone even care what they say? The English Tavistock Institute by way
of the CIA which the British molded from the OSS created programs for the Heritage Foundation as well as the Hoover Institute,
MIT, Stanford University, Wharton, Rand etc. These "rightwing think tanks" were created to counter the CIA's "leftwing think tanks"
at Columbia, Berkeley etc. Thank you British Intelligence.
Steve Bannon was just interviewing someone (can't remember his name). Apparently there are about 200 to 300 IT professionals/engineers
working on these so-called "glitches" (not glitches at all) which mysteriously "disappeared" thousands of Trump votes. Then they'd
dump phony Biden votes into the mix. These IT professionals are going to follow the trail.
I've also heard that Dominion Voting Systems played a big part in this scam by using algorithms. One Trump lawyer said that
big revelations are coming.
We're going to have to be patient and just wait.
"The inclination of Republicans is for Trump to protect America's reputation by conceding the election."
I honestly think it's more like the old established Republicans (corporate bought) want Trump to lose because that is what
their campaign donors want (Big Pharma, Wall Street, etc.) They are part of the elite, and the elite (both the Democrats AND Republicans)
want Trump gone so they can continue their crony capitalist looting. They've got to appear like they're behind Trump, but I don't
think they are. Of course, that's not all Republican representatives.
Sounds like they've been rigging elections for awhile now. I bet they just messed up with Hillary. I think that's why she was
so upset. She had it, but they screwed up and didn't supply enough ballots.
@KenHinventive creative new ways to deceive.. first it was election machines, then mail in votes. next it will be magic carpet
voting. But the votes don't count, cause it is the electoral college that elects the President.
Trump also lost a significant number who did not understand Trump was an Israeli at heart, they thought he was a uncoothed
NYC red blooded American.
As far as white, black or pokadot color or any of the religions ganging up against Trump I don't think that happened, the fall
out into statistically discoverable categories is just that, fall out, not those categories conspiring to vote or not vote one
way or the other.
PCR seems to have trouble seeing a difference between the counting of perfectly proper votes which Pres Trump's post office
delivered late which may or may not be allowed by law which can be determined in court, and fraud like the dead voting or votes
being forged.
The fraud is all so transparent but no one in the power elite seems to give a crap whether the public catches on or not these
days. They know that the entire media which creates the false matrix of contrived "truth" that we all live in will back them to
the hilt because they are actually just one more working part in the grand conspiracy. We all know that when "O'Brian" says 2
+ 2 equals 5 we must all believe it, or at least say we do. We interface with "O'Brian's" minions on a daily basis but we don't
know the ultimate identity of "O'Brian" (in the singular or multiple). Many guesses are made, but they hide that from us fairly
well with the aid of their militaries and "intelligence" agencies (aka secret police in other times and places).
For example in the early hours of the morning of November 4 large ballot drops occurred in Michigan and Wisconsin that wiped
out Trump's lead.
In a very similar vein, it is the same thing that happened to Bernie Sanders during the primary's. Joe was down and out, and
Bernie was enjoying the lead and then "Bam!" Overnight Joe is back on top.
Well, fool me once,,,,,, .,and blah, blah whatever Bush said .
Dr Roberts has referenced in the interview a UR article that goes into considerable detail about the massive electoral fraud
by the Democrats and their partners. You've obviously not bothered to read it.
You're like one of those MSM hacks who denies electoral fraud without making any attempt to look at the evidence.
@Begemot
And it's almost always a closer race than anyone would have guessed beforehand -- which I also find suspicious. How likely is
it that the majority of presidential elections over the last century were decided by more or less even numbers of voters from
each party, between more or less evenly matched candidates?
Really seems like they've perfected the art of putting on rigged political shows that you can't quite believe in, but don't
have anything really solid to back up your suspicions. It's like the "no evidence of fraud" canard -- anything solid enough to
show obvious manipulation is explained away as the exception, rather than the tip of a very deep iceberg
Like the false accusations about Russia, delegitimizing the presidential election as fraud is turning out to be much ado
about nothing.
Let's review. The Democrats perpetrated the phony 2016 Russian influence fraud, and now the Democrats are perpetrating the
phony 2020 election victory.
The common elements are Democrats perpetrate fraud.
IMO this is a simple remedy to settle the election fraud mess or we will be arguing about this 20 years from now .from the
American Thinker.
The candidates on the ballot must have an opportunity to have observers whom they choose to oversee the entire process so
the candidates are satisfied that they won or lost a free and fair election.
That is not what happened in the 2020 election. That is the single most important and simple fact that needs to be understood
and communicated. The 2020 election was not a free and fair election, because poll-watchers were not allowed to do their essential
job. The 2020 election can still be a free and fair election with a clear winner, whoever that may be, but time is running
out.
In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must
be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were
discarded, those votes must be discarded. Put the blame for this on the officials who decided to count the votes in secret.
Consider it a way to discourage secret vote counts in the future.
The pandemic has not been fearful enough to close liquor stores, and it in should not be used as excuse to remove the poll-watchers
who are essential to a free and fair election. If we must have social distancing, then use cameras.
Certainly, there are other issues with the 2020 election. There may be problems with software, and there are issues like
signature verification and dead people voting. Everything should be considered and examined, but no other issue should distract
from the simple fact that both sides must be able to view the entire process. If one side is not allowed to view the vote-counting,
then that side should be calling it a fraud. We should all be calling it a fraud.
...Trump had control of the Senate, the House and of course the Executive between his inauguration in January of 2017 and the
Midterm Elections of 2018, a total time period of 1 year and 10 months. What did he do during this time? He deregulated financial
services and passed corporate tax cuts.
At the end of the day, being emotionally invested in US elections is no different to being emotionally invested in Keeping
up with the Kardashians , that is to say your life wouldn't be that different if your don't follow either.
The Democrats Have Stolen the Presidential Election
The Deep State Has Stolen the Presidential Election. FIFY. But they have been in control for decades they just don't care who
knows now. They are taking final steps to make their control impervious to attack.
This is the reason that the establishment latched on to the Eisenhowerian bon mot but entirely memory hole Trumman's
far more explicit warning a freaking month after a sitting president is shot like a turkey in Dallas: it white washes CIA and
NSC .
The place to begin, and it's mind-blowing when you think about it this way, is that nothing was resolved on election night.
Not who will take the oath on January 20th. Nor which party will control the Senate. Nor even who will be Speaker and which party
will control the House.
Suffice it to say, a still raging factional struggle has simply moved to a greater degree behind the curtain.
I noted this movie reference on another thread here:
If your father dies, you'll make the deal, Sonny.
-- "The Godfather"
My point being, you're foolish if you ascribe certainty as to outcome at this point.
Being rid of Trump has been as close to a dues ex machina for the establishment as imaginable since he took the oath. This
ineluctable observation elicits no end of foot-stomping by those who assume it necessarily says anything positive about the man.
With every persistent revision of the script they wrote for him, all ending with his political demise at least, Trump has not
just survived but grown stronger. While the Democrats turned our elections into something only seen in a third-world shit hole,
Trump legitimately drew 71M votes from Americans.
That's a lot of air in the balloon. Believe me, filth like Russian mole Brennan may think everything is finished once they
get rid of terrible, awful Trump, but those above his pay grade know better.
Like him or hate him, Trump is the only principal not wholly or largely discredited. He was saved from destruction during his
first term by the Republican base moving to protect him. That was the import of his 90-95% approval among them, destroy him and
you destroy the Republican Party.
Now, despite -- or perhaps, because of -- everything they've done, that base now includes a significant number of Democrats
and independents. Trump is merely a vessel for an American majority attached to this constitutional republic thingie we've got
going.
Don't get lost in the details. This isn't a puzzle you can solve by internet sleuthing. The plan they executed -- to steal
sufficiently to make the outcome inevitable by the morning after the election at the latest -- failed. This was evident early
on Election Day (e.g. fake water main breaks in Atlanta) and necessitated their playing their Fox/AZ card and shutting down the
count at least until they had removed Republican monitors.
"In 22 states, Republicans will hold unified control over the governor's office and both houses of the legislature, giving
the party wide political latitude -- including in states like Florida and Georgia."
"Eleven states will have divided governments in 2021, unchanged from this year: Democratic governors will need to work with
Republican legislators in eight states, and Republican governors will contend with Democratic lawmakers in three."
The Democrats have: Joe Biden, and a slim majority in the House of Representatives which they are almost certain to lose in
two years.
What the Republicans are going to do is everything we hate, but they will pretend they were "forced" to do it by the Democrats
– the Democrats being the minority party.
Who else could have survived what Trump has been subjected to by the Establishment and their media prostitutes. In the United
States the media is known as "presstitutes" -- press prostitutes. That is what Udo Ulfkotte says they are in Europe.
Left and right.
(What you small brains do not understand is this.)
Democrats enabling the elite to invest in far east (lower wage costs, higher profits) did abandon the working class in America.
Democrats by this act did throw away the working class as a dirty rug.
Democrats with their TPP exporting most of the production to far east would totally destroy working class in USA. Trump's first
act was to cancel this insanity. Democrats are insanely delusional.
Democrats were left. Left is a party that supports the working people.
So here switch occurred. Democratic party now represent the elite, and Republicans now represent the working people.
(The irony of the fate)
The headline for PCR's article is a prediction, not yet established, and incomplete.
There is an ongoing massive attempt to steal the Presidential election as well as to steal an unknown number of House and Senate
seats, and who knows what else.
The 'game' is still on. Many tens of millions of citizens – actual total unknown but possibly in numbers unprecedented in American
history – voted for Trump. Republican candidates for office generally had strong support, but again, the actual percentage of
support is unknown but presumably larger than now 'recorded'.
There are also the many millions who ardently supported Trump, know that Biden is illegitimate, deeply corrupt, and the precursor
to perils unknown. Their determination and backbone and intelligence will now be tested.
There is the electoral college process; there are the state legislators that have a say in the process; there is the Supreme
Court.
There is also the possibility of pertinent executive orders that mandate transparent processes in the face of, say, apprehended
insurrection via fraudulent voting processes.
There is also the matter of how millions of 'deplorables' with trucks and tractors and firearms and other means to make their
point will react to obvious massive election travesty.
The conjunction of the COVID global scamdemic/plandemic, with crazed Bill Gates and kin lurking in the background with needles,
'peaceful' protesters in many cities setting fires and looting with near impunity, and a mass media that is clearly comprehensively
committed to a demonic degree of dishonesty and manipulation, and lunatic levels of 'identity politics' ideology, are among the
elements setting the stage for what may be an historical watershed.
The American Revolution in the 18th century, against the British Crown's authority, came about after years of simmering anger
and sporadic resistance against British injustice. At some point there was a 'tipping point'. When Germany invaded and occupied
Norway early in the 2nd WW, an effective resistance quickly formed in reaction, where death and torture were the known willing
risk. Two years before, those forming the resistance would have been just going on with their lives.
Who's Afraid of an Open Debate? The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the
major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants.
Ben Swann explains how the new coalition of EndPartisanship org is working to break the 2 party hold on primary elections,
which currently lock around 50% of voters out of the process.
I am currently watching an interview with SD Governor Kristi Noem, who went on ABC to challenge George Stenopolosus' claim
that there is no fraud in this election. She pointed out that there has been many allegations, including dead people voting in
PA and GA, she says we don't know how widespread this is, but we owe it to the 70+ million people who voted for Trump to investigate
and ensure a clean and fair election. She said we gave Al Gore 37 days to investigate the result in 2000, why aren't we giving
the same to Trump?
She is extremely articulate and sounds intelligent and honest, and what's more courageous to come forward like this. I hope
she runs for president in 2024, I'd vote for her.
Am I the only one who sees something profoundly spiritual happening in front of our eyes?
Yes. In reality, 5% of White men sent Trump packing. That doesn't match the GOP negrophile narrative where "based" Hindustanis
join the emerging conservative coalition to make sure White people can't get affordable healthcare in their own countries, though.
So we'll have to watch you parasites spool up this pedantic "fraud" nonsense until the fat orange zioclown gracelessly gets dragged
out.
Good post. You will gain more insight from this background on the speech and drafting.
Jan 19, 2011 Eisenhower's "Military-Industrial Complex" Speech Origins and Significance US National Archives
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address, known for its warnings about the growing power of the "military-industrial
complex," was nearly two years in the making. This Inside the Vaults video short follows newly discovered papers revealing that
Eisenhower was deeply involved in crafting the speech.
Great article. Thanks. Agree with you about the big stealing being electronic. Trump tweeted out yesterday that over 2 million
votes were stolen this way. For him to say this, they must have evidence.
Dinesh D'Souza said he hopes that when this matter comes before the Supreme Court that they will tackle once and for all what
constitutes a legal vote.
Some pretty big names are involved with this Dominion Voting. It will be interesting to see what Trump's team of IT experts
discover re the use of algorithms to swing the vote.
Why (Oh, why) did Trump had to go? Because Trump is an enema to the Deep State. He was threatening to expose the biggest lie
of the last 100 years – the supposed "liberalism" of US...
The author refers to a body of overwhelmingly persuasive evidence of voter fraud that can be specified and quantified to provide
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, not to mention hands down proof in civil cases requiring only a preponderance
of the evidence to establish guilt. Furthermore, the Democrats' easily documented, elaborate efforts at concealing the vote counting
process by shutting down the counting prior to sneaking truckloads of ballots in the back door is by itself powerful circumstantial
evidence of their guilt. You have no idea what "evidence" means, either in general usage or in its strictly legal sense.
The election cannot be trusted at all, just based on the insane entitled emotional state of the Globalist establishment alone.
The system as-a-whole cannot be trusted, for the same reason. They are actively corrupting it in every way they can, and fully
believe (as a matter of religious conviction) that they are right to do so.
That's one of the Jew/Anglo Puritan Establishment's new catch-phrases. There's also "no evidence" that Joe Biden acted in a
corrupt manner in Ukraine, even though he admitted to it on tape. There's "no evidence" that Big Tech is biased against conservative
plebians, despite their removing conservative plebians' published content arbitrarily and with no State compulsion to do so.
The phrase "there's no evidence" is just a public commitment to ignore any evidence, no matter how blatant or obvious.
This newly discovered legal standard goes beyond "preponderance of the evidence" or even "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"
to establish absolute certainty as the standard.
Just the obvious and necessary complement of the Bob Mueller standard for Russian collusion, don't you think -- "could not
(quite) exonerate"? /s
They went for a softer approach in KY in 2019. The first-term Repub Gov had a Yankee's forthrightness so they just latched
onto comments he made regarding the underfunded teachers pension program and amped-it to high heaven getting teachers all in a
frightful frenzy.
In that solidly Red state, with all other prominent offices on the ballot (AG, SoS, etc.) going overwhelmingly Repub
, somehow the Repub Gov loses to the Dem by around 5000 votes. The "teachers pension" narrative was rolled-out as the reason.
(Btw, it seems that Dominion, or another type, software was used to switch the votes in that race. I've seen video about it.)
@Orville
H. Larson out how the winds are blowing. There is nothing good about it.
Why not this:
-- ONLY in-person voting over a 2-day period, a Sat and Sun, with polls being open from 6AM to 9PM both days.
-- Exceptions are the traditional requested absentee ballot where the voter can be authenticated.
-- Paper ballots must be used at the polls and no single box of 'Straight Vote by Party' is offered.
-- Some kind of SIMPLE scanning tabulator could be used of the ballots and with it NOT being connected to the internet.
There is far too much cheating opportunity built into our current system. That's intended, of course. It needs to end!
Because you don't get it. You are missing the big picture. It was well known that these systems had the ability to be hacked
as soon as they were implemented. It is also a well known fact that massive mail in ballots increases the likelihood that corrupt
individuals are more likely to get away with election fraud.
Everyone knew about the potential for voter fraud to occur, but the entire system is corrupt, including Trump who has allowed
the massive corruption within the system that was present when he entered office to persist and grow because he is a wimpy, spineless,
coward, that was too afraid to make any waves and take the heat that he promised his voters.
Why anyone voted for Trump in 2020 confounds me. I voted for him in 2016 and he has turned out to be one of the worst presidents
in history.
Trump in his cowardess and dishonesty knew that the ailing economy would harm his chances of being re-elected, so he allowed
the health scare scamdemic to occur and destroy the livelihoods, lives, and businesses of hundreds of millions of Americans
because he is a psychopath. Trump did not do what he promised. Trump made America worse than it has ever been since the end of
slavery. Jeremy Powell said today that the economy is dead and will never recover.
The only injustices that Trump gave a damn about were the injustices against himself and his family, and has committed countless
injustices against the entire country and world during his term. Trump is a corrupt narcissist. The facts prove it. Trump is such
a corrupt narcissist that he was willing to destroy the entire economy based on scientific fraud, high crimes, and treason to
use as political cover for his own incompetency which is the most offensive and disgusting diabolical act ever perpetrated on
the entire country.
Trump has also demanded the extradition of Assange after telling his voters that he loved wikileaks. Trump is a two-faced,
lying, fraud. It has been his pattern. He consistently supports various groups and people like Wikileaks, Proud Boys, and others
and panders to them and voters and tells people that he loves them, and then every time without fail when the heat is on, Trump
says," I really don't know anything about them."
"I know nothing." Trump saying "I know nothing." defines his presidency and who he is as a person, a spineless, pandering,
corrupt, two-faced, narcissist, loser, and wimp!
Why would anyone vote for him the second time around after a record of pathological incompetency and pathological corruption?
What's to approve of about him? Go ahead, investigate voter fraud it if is permitted, and if it isn't then ask yourselves why
it is that a system that enables election fraud is in place, and ask yourselves who had the ability to change it and, who had
the ability to benefit from it!
"I had planned to get the vaccine but will now stand in solidarity with our seniors by
not doing so until THEY can. I urge my colleagues who are under 65 and healthy to join me,"
Gabbard said in a Monday morning message posted to Twitter.
The congresswoman and previous presidential hopeful blasted "heartless bureaucrats"
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for not prioritizing seniors, viewed as the
most vulnerable to Covid-19, in their rollout plan.
Seniors were deemed a second-priority group by the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices, which recommended health care workers, nursing home staff/residents receive the
vaccine first. CDC Director Robert Redfield could still prioritize seniors. He has expressed
support for ensuring people over the age of 70 receive the vaccine sooner rather than
later.
Gabbard's statement stands in contrast to the actions of many lawmakers who have received
the vaccine before it is available to most Americans.
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), 49, was accused on social media of "cutting" to the
front of the line by critics after posting images of himself receiving the vaccine over the
weekend.
On the other side of the political aisle, 31-year-old Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York)
also received pushback after receiving the vaccine, with many citing her young age as a reason
for her not to be one of the first to get vaccinated.
Others, like journalist Glenn Greenwald, also pointed to the hypocrisy of many liberals
criticizing conservatives like Rubio, but celebrating Ocasio-Cortez's vaccination
announcement.
Senior lawmakers like House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California), 80, and Senate majority
leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) have also been vaccinated.
The outgoing representative from Hawaii gave a harsh evaluation of the controversial
stimulus package, which many critics see as too little, too late for the country, which has
been ravaged by Covid-19. She said she voted against the bill because it was rushed and catered
to special interests rather than the needs of the people.
The almost 5,600-page package was distributed to lawmakers just hours before the vote, so
"There is no way that anybody in Congress had the opportunity or time to go through and read
this bill to know exactly what was in it," Gabbard said.
And its actual content – which allocates money to things like missiles for the
Pentagon and provides a tax break for corporate meals, dubbed the 'three martini lunch' by
critics – is "an insult and a slap in the face to every single American in this
country, who is struggling because of this Covid-19 pandemic."
This bill is a representation of the screwed-up priorities of Washington.
The bill was passed by the Democrat-controlled House 359-53 on Monday and was given a 92-6
stamp of approval by the Republican-controlled Senate hours later. President Donald Trump is
expected to sign it into law.
Gabbard, a maverick Democratic representative whose tenure ends next month, has a record of
voting against her own party and has taken flack for it in the past. Arguably the most notable
example was her 'present' vote on the articles of impeachment of President Trump a year ago.
She said she could not in good conscience vote either 'yes' or 'no' because she believed the
president to be guilty of wrongdoing, but saw the impeachment as a flawed process fueled by
partisanship.
William Gruff # 97
Posted by: uncle tungsten | Dec 18 2020 21:36 utc | 113
The 70s was when they started selling the good redwood saw logs to Japan instead of
cutting them up here because they could get more profit that way. At the time I do not think
it was considered that the Japanese would be able to compete with us as well as they did, and
I think the same applies to the other sellouts of our working class to foreign cheap
manufacturing centers. You have to remember these people really do think they are better.
They do think in class terms even if they avoid that rhetoric in public. The problem is they
thought they could control China like they did Japan. That was dumb then and it looks even
dumber now. You can see similar dumbness in their lack of grip on any realisitic view of
Russia. Provincials really. Rich peasants.
Thanks for the redfish video suggestion. Worth watching not only to get insight about the
current developments in India but also understanding the global Zeitgeist.
I couldn't avoid to identify the exact same type of developments and problems that working
class and increasingly also middle class facing in other parts of the world.
The globalization of capitalism since the fall of USSR and Warsaw pact, has caused
accelerated monopolization of political and economic power everywhere in the world,
this was achieved by enforcing the same neoliberal agenda globally. No matter if you look at
the USA, Germany, Iran or India, you discover the same type of "reforms". Reforms that result
in increased poverty, more and more middle class families are losing their socioeconomic
position and becoming part of working class.
One come to the understanding that the "Great Reset" we are talking about recently, is not
something new in the beginning and making, it's only the continuation of an agenda which has
been in implementation since 30 years ago.
have you noticed that terms like "Imperialism" and "Capitalist government" which were
natural parts of the political discourse in 20th century have been increasingly replaced by
"Nepotism" and "Oligarchy" in 21st century?
Thank you and I have noticed the shift in terminology. I try to avoid it as I believe in
the need to be extremely clear about socialism and capitalism. I prefer to avid CCP and
prefer Chinese Communist Party. I take care to compare western issues with how Cuba is
actually doing. Keep making it clear there is a range of alternatives to private finance
capitalism and IMF usury.
The weavers of deceit and theft that are private finance capitalists are indeed oligarchs
and they attempt to crush any discussion of repossessing their wealth and redistributing it
so that more people can do more work with it and generate stronger societies. The private
finance vultures live in dread of a Tobin tax so I say bring it on. Wherever cash is locked
away and idle - take it and give it to the people as it is they who know how to put it back
to work and generate security and peace within communities.
Wherever power is monopolised in industry then force a devolution of shares to workers and
unions and pay shares as taxes to the state so that dividends go to all including the state.
As it is now in many countries mega corporations extort tax holidays to set up production
units in the counties and dump the entire cost of infrastructure expansion onto those
counties as part of their extortion. Information monopolies are the most critical to
dismantle. Look at the west where critical journalism has been reduced to mediocre
stenography and those with integrity are entirely reliant on other monopolies to squeeze
their digital content between the pillars of censorious monopolies like twitter and facebook
etc. These monopolies are managing public content and creativity and should be in public
ownership - NOT just shareholder public but the entire public.
There is this ruse of oligarchs today just as in Venice in the 16th and 17th century where
the Doges in their magnificence spy on the citizens and reward citizens for spying on each
other, where social cohesion and solidarity is corroded and rots within. That is what the neo
liberal and private finance agenda is - to monopolise $$$ and power and decision making
within the hands of decrepit gerontocrats like Pelosi, Lord Rothschild, Rupert Murdoch, Queen
Elisabeth etc, etc.
Enough of this rant... thank you Framarz. Long live those countries that have for decades
repelled the evil that would crush their freedom and socialism. May Russia find its way to
reintegrate socialism within its future.
by: steven t johnson @ 13 says "the Presidency is essentially unchecked: Article II and
amendment 12 clearly state
that no one can challenge the president.." <= I add "unless congress can find something
they themselves are all
guilty of, and are collectively willing to accept the risk that they themselves might be
removed for the same crime
for which the Congress might impeach the President .. from elected Office impeachment is
impossible.
It is this improbability of removing the President from office that makes the control of
the content allowed or
pushed on the public by the main stream media so important to the stability of the government
and the ability of
the President to lead.
The only way a President can be impeached is to do to the President what the Lenin and
Tolstoy Bolshevik regime
change team accomplished to bring down the Czar of Russia. The media began its attacks on
Christian Czar led
Russia in 1875 by 1919 if the Czar had said it was raining outside the entire nation of
Russia wanting to know if
it were raining would go outside to see for themselves.
Tolstoy, a public hero, blamed the Czar for the problems caused by a pandemic and a famine
of 1891. The peasants
of Russia were trained by media content to distrust any and everything the Czar or any member
of his staff said or
did. Propaganda said there was evil behind every act of the Czar. Tolstoy's famous propaganda
undermined the
Christian faith held by millions of people.
"The Minister for the Interior told the Emperor Czar that Tolstoy's letter to the English
press 'must be considered
tantamount to a most shocking revolutionary proclamation': not a judgement that can often
have been made of a letter
to The Daily Telegraph. Czar Alexander III began to believe that it was all part of an
English plot and the Moscow
Gazette, which was fed from the Government, denounced Tolstoy's letters as 'frank propaganda
for the overthrow of
the whole social and economic structure of the world'." see destroys
Christain Russian government
Norecovery @ 22 says and I have added to what he said to make this list.
1. "The .. criminals have ..take[n] over foreign policy in the U.S.,
these criminals you are talking about are not part of the government, they are private
persons and corporations.
Allow me to remind you that Article II of the Constitution of the USA only concerns two
persons, The President
and the VP.. to them all power to act domestic and foreign is given, Congress has no power
that it cannot get
into law, and no power to govern the office of the President and that has been true since the
original constitution
was ratified in 1788. To conduct war around the world, it is necessary only to won the
president.
2. leveraging money power .. the oligarch network employees highly motivated highly-paid
promoters to force President control onto the world.
3. The Oligarch and their corporations control Congress, Intelligence Agencies, and the
content that MSM presents...
4. the MSM distributed content expresses total censorship as does Google, and social
media
5. Corona virus is bio-warfare designed to undermine small-scale economies and to
establish Oligarch autonomy
6. Using rule of law (generated by nation state power) oligarch owned corporations own all
non taxable property (copyrights and patents) and the right to use all technology (copyright
and patents).
7. Worldwide compliance is the goal of the oligarch. owning the nation state allows
military, financial, and media to be used to crush dissent and to extract wealth.
8. The pharma-promoted questionable gene editing vaccinations are questionable at
best.
9. Humanity is witnessing a worldwide COUPS, UBER-Fascism that exceeds all historical
examples.
10. WWI was a war to take control of the Ottoman owned oil rich land and to tame German
competitive strength.
11. Hilter return Germany to its former power, so WWII was to take German competition
completely out of the equation.
12. The wars in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Palestine, are about pipeline and
control of oil production, transport and profit
13. the wars in Belarus, Ukraine, Modldova, Bulgaria Romania, Hunary, Slovakia Cezech
Republic Poland are about getting Western Europe access into Russia.
14. Last week the House passed a bill designed to deny the president any authority to
reduce the US troops in Foreign land.
so your question at norecovery @ 22 will it succeed is relevant. I don't think it will, I
was told the Governor of Florida
has refused to take the vaccine, word is getting around; people everywhere in USA governed
America, in UK governed
Britain, in Republic of France governed France ( riots every weekend for over two years) ,
and Zionist governed
Israel (riots all over the place all of the time).. everyone is skeptical of the nation state
system.
I think the take over would have succeeded if the Oligarchs had not tried to force a
vaccination on people that
genetic engineers (changes the way their body works) the bodies those vaccinated were born
with.
Snake @ 36
You must have spent a lot of time and consideration on that far reaching summary !
That's MOA at its very best !!
I could only add -- - the disfunctional mindset that blights America right now is having an
immediate impact on all corners of the world.
I see it even in my tiny peaceful backwater.
If they create a fascist monster unleash it on the world -- it will consume everything and
everyone in its path.
Whithin a decade.
The Democratic party has always specialized in co-opting the groundswell movements that
arise from the street level up, and neutering those movements through a tongue-twisting and
mind-bending variety of rationales for doing nothing.
And so the Democratic party sees its imperative currently as co-opting this call for
Medicare for All. It has attempted this, and is still attempting this, but its efforts are
failing. It cannot turn the impulse from the street into longer-view delays on getting this
done - especially because both the tactical moment and the strategic realities are NOW, and
the people know this.
~~
A clever Democratic party, deep in its back room, would realize that the only way to
maintain its mystique as a "progressive" force now would be to concede the loss of its
obstructionist position, and to allow the vote for Medicare for All, in order to save itself
as a party for the future decades.
It so far doesn't seem to have understood this.
The Democratic party is enabling its own destruction and it will never understand why. And
as we have seen before with multiple examples, this lack of understanding is alone the reason
that any representative entity should die.
"... The bottom line is the true enemies of the American people are no foreign nation or adversary---the true enemy of the American people are the people who control America. ..."
"... This way of thinking points to a dilemma for the American ruling class. Contrary to a lot of the rhetoric you hear, much of the American ruling class, including the "deep state" is actually quite anti-China. To fully account for this would take longer than I have here. But the nutshell intuitive explanation is that the ruling class, particularly Wall Street, was happy for the past several decades to enrich both themselves and China by destroying the American working class with policies such as "free-trade" and outsourcing. But in many ways the milk from that teat is no more, and now you have an American ruling class much more concerned about protecting their loot from a serious geopolitical competitor (China) than squeezing out the last few drops of milk from the "free trade." ..."
This is awesome, he nails the dilemma which our owners are confronted with;
I'll put it this way: It is not as though the American ruling class is intelligent,
competent, and patriotic on most important matters and happens to have a glaring blind spot
when it comes to appreciating the threat of China. If this were the case, it would make
sense to emphasize the threat of China above all else.
But this is not the case. The American ruling class has failed on pretty much every
issue of significance for the past several decades. If China were to disappear, they would
simply be selling out the country to India, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, or some other country
(in fact they are doing this just to a lesser extent).
Our ruling class has failed us on China because they have failed us on everything. For
this reason I believe that there will be no serious, sound policy on China that benefits
Americans until there is a legitimate ruling class in the United States. For this reason
pointing fingers at the wickedness and danger of China is less useful than emphasizing the
failure of the American ruling class. The bottom line is the true enemies of the
American people are no foreign nation or adversary---the true enemy of the American people
are the people who control America.
This way of thinking points to a dilemma for the American ruling class. Contrary to
a lot of the rhetoric you hear, much of the American ruling class, including the "deep
state" is actually quite anti-China. To fully account for this would take longer than I
have here. But the nutshell intuitive explanation is that the ruling class, particularly
Wall Street, was happy for the past several decades to enrich both themselves and China by
destroying the American working class with policies such as "free-trade" and outsourcing.
But in many ways the milk from that teat is no more, and now you have an American ruling
class much more concerned about protecting their loot from a serious geopolitical
competitor (China) than squeezing out the last few drops of milk from the "free
trade."
@102 karlof1 - "By deliberately setting policy to inflate asset prices, the Fed has
priced US labor out of a job, while as you report employers sought labor costs that allowed
them to remain competitive."
I never heard it said so succinctly and truly as this before. That is what happened isn't
it? The worker can't afford life anymore, in this country.
And if the worker can't afford the cost of living - who bears the cause of this, how
follows the remedy of this, and what then comes next?
I really appreciate your point of view, which is the only point of view, which is that the
designers of the economy, the governors of the economy, have placed the workers of the
economy in a position that is simply just not tenable.
No wonder they strive to divide in order to rule - because they have over-reached through
greed and killed the worker, who holds up the society.
How long can the worker flounder around blaming others before the spotlight must turn on
the employer?
You have to remember these people really do think they are better. They do think in class
terms even if they avoid that rhetoric in public. The problem is they thought they could
control China like they did Japan. That was dumb then and it looks even dumber now. You can
see similar dumbness in their lack of grip on any realisitic view of Russia. Provincials
really. Rich peasants.
Thank you, they certainly DO think in class terms ALWAYS. + Rich peasants is perfect
:))
Thankfully they are blinded by hubris at the same time. The USA destroyed the Allende
government in Chile in 1973. After the Nixon Kissinger visit to China in 1979 they assumed
they could just pull a color revolution stunt when they deemed it to be the right time.
Perhaps in their hubris they thought every Chinese worker would be infatuated with capitalism
and growth.
They tested that out in the People Power colour (yellow) revolt in the Filipines in 1986
following a rigged election by Marcos. In 1989 only 16 years after China had been buoyed up
with growth and development following the opening to USA capitalism, they tried out the same
trick in Tienanmen square in China but those students were up against the ruling party of the
entire nation - not the ruling class. BIG MISTAKE. The ruling party of China was solidly
backed by the peasant and working class that was finally enjoying some meager prosperity and
reward a mere 40 years after the Chinese Communist Party and their parents and grandparents
had liberated China from 100 years of occupation, plunder, human and cultural rapine and
colonial insult. Then in 2020 it was tried on again in Hong Kong. FAIL.
The hubris of the ruling class and its running dogs is pathetic.
We see the same with Pelosi and the ruling class in the Dimoratss today. They push Biden
Harris to the fore, piss on the left and refuse to even hold a vote on Medicare for All in
the middle of a pandemic. Meanwhile the USAi ruling class has its running dogs and hangers on
bleating that "its wrong tactic, its premature, its whatever craven excuse to avoid exposing
the ruling class for what they are - thieves, bereft of compassion, absent any sense of
social justice, fakes lurking behind their class supposition.
They come here to the bar with their arrogant hubris, brimming with pointless information
some even with emoji glitter stuck on their noses. Not a marxist or even a leftie among them.
Still its class that matters and its the ruling class that we must break.
@102 karlof1 and Grieved | Dec 19 2020 3:12 utc | 129
I did not understand inflate-assets/suppress-workers and forgot to return to it to clear
it up. Grieved sent me back to Karlof1. I just got it.
That viewpoint indeed explains method of operation to accomplish the results I observed.
When Nixon was forced to default on Bretton Woods use of Gold Exchange Standard* [the USD is
as good as gold], then printing fiat solved the problem [threat to US inventory of
gold]....but printing fiat [no longer redeemable as a promise convert to gold] became the new
problem [no way to extinguish the promises to redeem/pay].
So how to proceed? Aha! Steal from the workers; squeeze 'em, entertain and dazzle 'em!..
Such an elegant solution...slow, certain and hardly noticeable...like slow-boiling frogs...an
on-going project as we blog.
There is so much agreement and support for Jimmy Dore hammering away that it is emerging
as a wave. With any luck for the people, the USA establishment might have to make a show of
conceding to a floor vote on medicare for all in the next month.
Right now the Dimoratss shills - like the Squad and David Sirota are looking totally
dishonest. SAD
Jimmy Dore has gathered considerable momentum and is now joined by other high profile
utoobers Kyle
Kulinski and Mike
Figueredo.
Will Joe Rogan add weight to M4A. I say do two birds with one stone - achieve a floor vote
on M4A and finally destroy the Pelosi stranglehold on the journey for progressive
legislation.
Tulsi Gabbard said she ran as presidential candidate with the Democratic party because she
believed that a third party didn't stand a chance against the Dems' political clout. And
because she believed that the Dems could be brought back to their original goal, i.e. the
party of and for the people. I wonder if she still believes that. And I personally wonder if
there will be a 2024 presidential race, seeing that the USA is soon heading towards collapse
from a completely corrupt parasitic elite.
Nikolaidis 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:31 PM
There is no room for sane people in an insane society. The US and most parts of the so-called
Western world are becoming more and more insane with their "gender correctness" making men
women and women men plus adding 87, or is it 114, new genders. It is a sure sign of social
decline and collapse. It is parallel to what can be observed when looking at the fall of the
Roman empire.
zoombeenie 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:22 AM
Tulsi was America's chance at being at least No.2 to China. Now with already effectively a
one party state with both GOP and Dems beholden to their sponsors (MIC and the 1%) its now
jumping from the fire into the frying pan. Hope the US doesn't implode before the people wake
up to reality and see Tulsi as the saviour in 2024.
David Penrose Barneby 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:21 AM
Tulsi Gabbard was the only credible democrat candidate for the presidency , I believe Tulsi
Gabbard would be a good president . America today has sunk beyond recognition , where lies ,
deceitfulness and brazen dishonesty are accepted as the norm .
Doodle_Dandy 15 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:08 AM
This just proves to the world the total corruption within American politics. They can't talk
democracy, they are the world's largest terrorist organisation...and to think Yanks think
they are exceptional, makes me laugh...
David Penrose Barneby Doodle_Dandy 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:30 AM
A laugh of derision ! I too would laugh , but unfortunately it isn't remotely funny . I'm
British , ashamed of the British government , I am ashamed that my sons and their California
wives vote democrat . Are even educated American So Ignorant that they are unaware of the
total corruption they are supporting ?
1justssayn 10 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 09:20 AM
As a Democrat she endorsed the party instead of switching. Ronald Reagan said "I didn't leave
the democratic party, they left me". She should up hold her values and moral high ground by
changing parties. After this terrible year maybe the libertarian and Constitution parties
could arise and replace the Dem-, pub parties of corruption.
TWolsey 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:42 PM
USA is crumbling. From within of course. That's how it is said it will happen.
a325 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:04 PM
Tulsi is so much the better person and candidate than Kamala!
Black Chinese 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 06:49 PM
I support Tulsi on this bill to level the playing field to protect the female gender to
compete with and against females and not WANNABE females with man muscles and everything a
man have at birth.
jangosimba 9 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 10:44 AM
Tulsi can sleep well, knowing she does the right thing. I can't say that about any other
politician, none.
SNrt 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 05:25 PM
Well said Michael McCaffrey! Thank you! I wish I new you in person. :)
uncle_Alex 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:56 PM
I agree!
PedroNZ 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:25 AM
Yep, we live in an upside-down world!
Crowfoot9 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:04 PM
I say let them accept all the trans people they want into woman's sports. All normal women
will eventually abandon professional competitions as all the unhinged glory seeking males
willing to earn some easy money and media attention will jump on this opportunity and kill
the sports. Will be interesting when this controversy reaches the olympics. All the non
western countries will abandon the Olympic Games and you'll be left with a western centred
competition which will look more like a circus show.
Blod_Grogan 7 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:22 PM
Yes, America is floundering. But as long as it is possible to make a bad-to-hopeless
situation fine and dandy by just claiming it is, sonorously and with expansive arm-wavings,
the steady slide will continue. Believe it or not, it is sometimes worthwhile and beneficial
to tell the truth. Ah, you'd never heard that before, well, despite that, I can assure you
several honest people claim that's true too - silly buggers.
Fred Dozer 18 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 01:28 AM
I have a lot of Tulsi , hats, and shirts and gave her several hundred dollars. I was upset to
say the least when she backed Biden. However I calmed a lot since than. I always wondered how
Lindsey Graham could keep winning. Says a lot about some Americans. Tulsi truth, is not what
most Americans, want to believe.
Manya 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:54 PM
Gabbard the one who is a member on the Council on Foreign Relations? Come on, RT, you can do
better. Keep in mind your website is supposed to be for the informed people, not the
Americans who can barely read and manage to watch "Dennis Miller +one."
D Green Manya 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:42 PM
Truth hurts. She's right on this issue, but 'broken clocks,' etc. CFR membership is a
huge red flag and like most Dems, Gabbard is also a gun-grabber. Any politician (most
all of them) who supports wholesale destruction of the Constitution and abrogating the
individual's right to self-defense is not to be trusted!
Nitupsar 3 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:14 PM
That's exactly my sentiment too!
Donkey80 17 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 02:54 AM
The greatest intrinsic quality of America is that it always gets the finest politicians money
can buy
Nathan075 18 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 01:19 AM
Kamala Harris = Queen of Tarts.
apothqowejh 21 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 11:01 PM
She should come to Texas and help us reestablish the republic.
Only in a nation that had taken leave of its senses would Tulsi Gabbard be denigrated and
Kamala Harris be queen-in-waiting
Michael McCaffrey
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and
Feeling Minnesota. Follow him on Twitter @MPMActingCo
In an age where lies are worshipped and cowardice celebrated, Tulsi Gabbard is despised for
her bravery and commitment to truth, while Kamala Harris is lauded for...what, exactly?
Tulsi Gabbard, the four-term Democratic congresswoman from Hawaii, is currently being
attacked by
liberals for introducing The Protect Women's Sports Act, which seeks to protect women's
athletics by recognizing that different sexes are born with different physical abilities.
Reasonable and rational people realize that men and women are biologically different.
Reasonable and rational people also realize that on average, men are bigger, stronger and
faster than women, and that just because someone born a male now subjectively "identifies" as a
female, that doesn't alter the objective fact that copious amounts of testosterone were pumping
through their body as it developed, thus making their competing against biological girls and
women in sport not only unfair, but dangerous.
These should not be controversial statements as they are obviously factually and
scientifically true. But objective truth is anathema in our age of subjective insanity. Which
is why Tulsi Gabbard's introduction of the Protect Women's Sports Act is a brazen act of
bravery.
This is why it is so perversely ironic that on the same day Tulsi Gabbard was being made a
pariah for courageously speaking plain truth and supporting common sense, Time Magazine was
announcing that the
empty pantsuit and monument to tokenism, Kamala Harris, and her chauffeur in the corporate
Democrat clown car, Joe Biden, were being honored as the Person of the Year.
If America were a sane place, Tulsi Gabbard, not Kamala Harris, would be the darling of the
supposedly liberal Democratic Party.
Gabbard is an intelligent, principled and charismatic woman of color, something the devotees
of diversity claim to desire. Her progressive bona fides are unquestionable as she vociferously
supports Medicare-for-All, a Universal Basic Income and wants to end the war on drugs and
private prisons. She is also a courageous anti-interventionist in addition to being a respected
Army Reservist and Iraq War veteran.
In contrast, Kamala Harris is a corrupt former "top cop" in California who brutalized the
poor
by being a proponent of the war on drugs yet let white-collar corporate criminals
skate . She is also a neo-liberal militarist who opposes
Medicare-for-All and a Universal Basic Income.
And yet, despite, or more likely because, of all of these things, Tulsi Gabbard is persona
non grata among the dupes, dopes and dullards in the Democratic party and media, while the
sellout and raging sub-mediocrity Kamala Harris is celebrated.
This is not surprising as Gabbard and her fetish for truth have long been a thorn in the
establishment's side, especially with her contrarian foreign policy beliefs, most notably
regarding Syria and Bashar Assad.
In 2017 Gabbard committed the cardinal sin of going against establishment orthodoxy when she
expressed skepticism regarding dubious claims of chemical weapons attacks by the Syrian
government in Khan Shaykhun, and, despite being right , was quickly
labeled an "Assad apologist."
She also made the egregious mistake of speaking the truth when she
said that the U.S. had been "waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011."
Nothing will get you a scarlet letter from the establishment faster than telling the truth
regarding America's thuggish empire.
As for compliant Kamala, speaking truth to power is not a sin with which she is intimately
familiar. Kamala is more of a kiss up and kick down kind of girl. She "kissed" up to former
Speaker of the California Assembly and San Francisco Mayor Willie
Brown and kicked down by trying to jail poor
parents of truant kids.
Another glaring difference between Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris is that Gabbard is guided
by principle and Harris is guided by blind partisanship and personal ambition.
For instance, besides the Protect Women's Sports Act, this week Gabbard also dared to cross
the aisle by
introducing the Break Up Big Tech Act, which supported Trump's initiative to repeal Section
230, which gives legal immunity to large social media companies. Gabbard did this because it is
the right thing to do, even if Trump supports it.
As for Kamala, she is allergic to principles beyond personal ambition. Kamala will not take
on big tech, as they are her donor base and she is a junkie for their money and a corporate
power courtesan. One should not expect a Biden-Harris administration to move in any way shape
or form against Silicon Valley.
Another argument in favor of Gabbard's superiority over Harris is that the one time the two
women went head-to-head was in the Democratic primary debates, and Gabbard eviscerated
Harris so decisively that it stopped Harris' presidential campaign dead in its tracks.
This week's state of affairs proves that America is a madhouse, and the media, Time Magazine
and their ridiculous and grammatically incorrect "Person of the Year" selection included, are
funhouse mirrors used to further distort our already deranged sur-reality.
In these United States of the Insane, the inmates are running the asylum as American
militarism and corporate power are now deemed benign, it is declared gender doesn't exist, and
Kamala Harris is worthy of celebration while Tulsi Gabbard is deserving of denigration.
America always gets the leadership it deserves, and when Joe Biden falls, or more likely
gets pushed, down a flight of stairs and Queen Kamala ascends to the throne, we will get what
we deserve. And that certainly isn't a person of the quality and worth of Tulsi Gabbard, that's
for damn sure.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
carlus 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:23 PM
Good essay. My question is why she endorsed Biden, which immediately compromised her
intellectual honesty and contradicts her previous decisions to buck the DNC and powers that
be. It is puzzling and disturbing. The practical implications are that by so doing, she
didn't allow a chance for her growing supporters and the country to overcome impending,
rapidly approaching disaster, in many forms. In other words, Tulsi was the last hope and it
is now too late. She didn't realize this.
Hanonymouse carlus 1 hour ago 12 Dec, 2020 06:40 PM
Because she probably wants to run again in the future, so she has to keep the party happy.
TruthSpeak carlus 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:55 AM
I was surprised she endorsed Biden, I did not know she did that. I felt she was the only hope
of sanity in this whole mess. I do hope she keeps pushing forward.
Anton Moric 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:42 PM
Spot on article that sums up the current situation in the USA quite well. Gabbard is a
rational hero, who is also strongly against the US Deep State's endless wars against the
perceived enemies of Israel. Another reason that the cabalists have unleashed their dogs on
her.
Rocky_Rambler Anton Moric 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:33 PM
I agree this was very well-written, and right on the money. I loved the phrase, " the empty
pantsuit and monument to tokenism, Kamala Harris, and her chauffeur in the corporate Democrat
clown car, Joe Biden "
Richi777 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:54 PM
Good article. Tulsi Gabbard is certainly the one to watch for the next election. Although the
swamp and or the deep state might have other ideas.
skizex Richi777 14 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 05:50 AM
Doesn't help that she is CFR
Russian_Bot Richi777 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 07:32 PM
In 4 years, it'll be, then, the incumbent President Kamala Harris and whoever the
establishment appointed to be No 2. Tulsi has no chance. I believe that by the next election,
the US is going to become, effectively, one-party nation. As of now, she is the only one who
could be a compromise figure for the centrists and moderates on both political sides. But
she's too independent and unpredictable for those who have high stakes in the future
elections outcome and are able to finance her campaign.
Je suis CHUMP 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 03:43 PM
"Only in a nation that had taken leave of its senses would Tulsi Gabbard be denigrated and
Kamala Harris be queen-in-waiting" Amen, Amen, Amen, Amen. I'm waiting for 2024 when Tulsi
Gabbard winning the presidential race, or VP position on Trump-Gabbard ticket.
Teodor Nitu Je suis CHUMP 22 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 09:22 PM
"... VP position on Trump-Gabbard ticket." That's exactly why she endorsed Biden, to dispel
the notion that she was a 'Trump supporter in disguise', as she was beginning to be painted
by some leftist extremists.
carlus Je suis CHUMP 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 04:12 PM
Gabbard has talked to Trump about issues. I think she tried to convince him that the climate
crisis is real. He either believes this and lies about it for political reasons (she would
find this repulsive ), or doesn't believe it and therefore is (and she would have a problem
with this as well) too willingly ignorant to listen to reason.
Rolf001 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 05:10 PM
Speaking the Truth in Times of Universal Deceit is a Revolutionary Act (George Orwell). Tulsi
represents exactly what Orwell meant.
Jose Francisco 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 07:32 PM
love the pincipled Tulsi. altho i did lose respect for her for her endorsement of BIden.
still, i can forgive her, i mean, look at her, she's committed to the truth, brave and
beautiful.
BluDiva 8 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 11:51 AM
I considered Gabbard one of the few, honest, intelligent politicians of our time. She invited
the wrath of her corrupt party, which stands for anything but honesty and intelligence.
However, her endorsement of Biden stands in strange opposition to her intellectual/political
persona.
bbob412 1 day ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:09 PM
The treatment of Tulsi Gabbard is a tell tale sign of how corrupt the DNC has become. She has
more integrity than the lot of them. It's scary how easy it is for the DNC to make good
people look evil. A little partisan politics and a lot of bad and misleading press goes a
long way in this country of half wits though.
TheFishh bbob412 22 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 09:43 PM
The DNC is so backward and demented that it won't consider anything new to the point that it
will force-feed a candidate that isn't all that popular.
Happylistener 23 hours ago 11 Dec, 2020 08:25 PM
She is straight, she is honest ( as far as we can see) she's the guts to stand up to the
bullies, lots of them. She has an opinion that reflects the ideals and ideas of her targeted
voters. Why are the DNC so afraid of her ? She doesn't flop like Bernie, she's not afraid of
The Hillary mob. Unfortunately, she can't get the big bucks that get you into power. I wonder
why? No war, no bucks ! Keep at it Tulsi Gabbard. You have guts.
Midnight10 19 hours ago 12 Dec, 2020 12:15 AM
How very true. Unfortunately since both parties rely on their funding from the
military/industrial complex, there will never be a candidate that would be acceptable if they
were not a warmonger. She spoke truth to power and turned the drumbeating msm against her.
She would have made a difference as VP. Kamala has her own agenda, and seems to love the
sound of her own voice. Has alot in common with Trump. Has already told BiBi there will be no
preconditions when the US deals with Israel. May get a illegal settlement named after her
yet.
Gabbard, who's set to leave office at the end of her congressional term, previously
introduced a
resolution alongside GOP lawmaker Matt Gaetz (Florida) urging the government to drop its
charges against Snowden – who was indicted under the World War I-era Espionage Act for
his role in leaking classified material revealing illegal mass surveillance by the National
Security Agency (NSA). Though the antiquated law was originally intended to prosecute foreign
spies, it has been repeatedly wielded against journalists and whistleblowers.
In 2008, Barack Obama received the names of his entire future cabinet already one month
prior to his election by CFR Senior Fellow (and Citigroup banker) Michael Froman, as a
Wikileaks email later revealed. Consequently, the key posts in Obama's cabinet were filled
almost exclusively by CFR members, as was the case in most
cabinets since World War II. To be sure, Obama's 2008 Republican opponent, the late John
McCain, was a CFR member, too. Michael Froman later negotiated the TPP and TTIP international
trade agreements, before returning to the CFR as a Distinguished Fellow.
In 2017, CFR nightmare President Donald Trump immediately canceled these trade agreements --
because he viewed them as detrimental to US domestic industry -- which allowed China to
conclude its own, recently announced RCEP free-trade area ,
encompassing 14 countries and a third of global trade. Trump also canceled other CFR
achievements, like the multinational Iran nuclear deal and the UN climate and migration
agreements, and he tried, but largely failed, to withdraw US troops from East Asia, Central
Asia, the Middle East, Europe and Africa, thus seriously endangering the global US empire built
over decades by the CFR and its 5000 elite members .
Unsurprisingly, most of the US media , whose owners and editors are themselves members of the CFR ,
didn't like President Trump. This was also true for most of the European media, whose owners
and editors are members of international CFR affiliates like the
Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission, founded by CFR directors after the conquest of
Europe during World War II. Moreover, it was none other than the CFR which in 1996
advocated a closer cooperation between the CIA and the media, i.e. a restart of the famous
CIA Operation
Mockingbird . Historically, OSS and CIA directors since William Donovan and Allen Dulles
have always
been CFR members.
This is the case for Anthony Blinken (State), Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security), Janet
Yellen (Treasury), Michele Flournoy and Jeh Johnson (candidates for Defense), Linda
Thomas-Greenfield (Ambassador to the UN), Richard Stengel (US Agency for Global Media; Stengel
famously called propaganda "a good thing"
at a 2018 CFR session), John Kerry (Special Envoy for Climate), Nelson Cunningham (candidate
for Trade), and Thomas Donilon (candidate for CIA Director).
Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor, is not (yet) a CFR member, but Sullivan
has been a Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment
for International Peace (a think tank "promoting active international engagement by the
United States") and a member of the US German Marshall Fund's
"Alliance For Securing Democracy" (a major promoter of the "Russiagate"
disinformation campaign to restrain the Trump presidency), both of which are run by senior
CFR members.
Most of Biden's CFR-vetted nominees
supported recent US wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen as well as the
2014 regime change in Ukraine. Unsurprisingly, neoconservative Max Boot, the CFR Senior Fellow
in National Security Studies and one of the most vocal opponents of the Trump administration,
has called Biden's future cabinet "America's A-Team" .
Thus, after four years of "populism" and "isolationism", a Biden presidency will mean the
return of the Council on Foreign Relations and the continuation of a tradition of more than 70 years .
Indeed, the CFR was founded in 1921 in response to the "trauma of 1920" ,
when US President Warren Harding and the US Senate turned isolationist and renounced US global
leadership after World War I. In 2016, Donald Trump's "America First" campaign reactivated this
100 year old foreign policy trauma.
Was the 2020 presidential election "stolen", as some allege? There are certainly indications
of
significant statistical anomalies in key Democrat-run swing states. Whether these were
decisive for the election outcome may be up to courts to decide. At any rate, Joe Biden may
well be the first US President known to be involved
in international corruption before even entering office.
Why are most US and international media hardly interested in this? Well, why should
they?
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
From comments to YouTube: "570,000 votes for Biden in 90 minutes" (1:30), "IM HONORED TO BE
HERE REPRESENTING FREEDOM!", "The Legislature, are our Lawmakers and they need to enforce and
protect the people from corrupt politicians who seek to capitalize on their position of power for
person profit and personal gain."
" Fascinating testimony. Amazingly straightforward and easy to follow. Not surprised at any
information given, only sadly disappointed that our country allowed itself to get to this point
by not standing firm and stopping the deceit for several generations. Thank you for finally
standing up and addressing the disgrace."
"It's in everyone's interest to have a full vetting of election irregularities and fraud,"
Giuliani said in a statement Tuesday. "And the only way to do this is with public hearings,
complete with witnesses, videos, pictures and other evidence of illegalities from the November
3rd election."
"There were serious irregularities, we have proof of fraud in a number of states, and it is
important for all Americans to have faith in our electoral process," Trump campaign senior legal
adviser Jenna Ellis said in a statement. "All we have wanted from the outset is to count every
legal vote and discount every illegal vote."
WHO: Senate Majority Policy Committee Chair David Argall (R-Berks/Schuylkill); Senate
Majority Leader-Elect Kim Ward (R-39); State Rep. Dan Moul (R-91); State Rep. Rob Kauffman
(R-89); and State Rep Paul Schemel (R-90); among other lawmakers will join Senator Mastriano in
this historic hearing.
Mastriano is clear what is at risk.
"Elections are a fundamental principle of our democracy – unfortunately,
Pennsylvanians have lost faith in the electoral system," said Mastriano, who recently called
for the resignation of State Department Secretary Kathy Boockvar for negligence and
incompetence. "It is unacceptable."
"Over the past few weeks, I have heard from thousands of Pennsylvanians regarding issues
experienced at the polls, irregularities with the mail-in voting system and concerns whether
their vote was counted," said Mastriano. "We need to correct these issues to restore faith in
our republic."
WHERE: Wyndham Gettysburg, 95 Presidential Circle, Gettysburg, PA 17325.
The hearing will be streamed live on policy.pasenategop.com.
WHEN: Wednesday, November 25th at 12:30 pm.
"We want assurance that the issues encountered during this past election don't happen
again," said Chairman Argall. "Senator Mastriano requested this meeting because Pennsylvanians
deserve a fair election."
"... "Democracy" is little more than another word for "rule by money" – it can be nothing else. The entire world is falling under the delusion that "each vote counts". ..."
"... The world is utterly corrupt, ruled almost exclusively by monied interests. Jesus said: "No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." ..."
"... Misinformed by the politicians and the MSM, presumably. So if establishment and career politicians are the enemies of the people, then anti-politicians and populist outsiders who want to drain the swamp deserve our fullest support. ..."
This is not just America. It is global. the decades old drive to convert the world's
governments to "democracy" is in fact a drive to place the elite in total control of the
populations. "Democracy" is little more than another word for "rule by money" – it can
be nothing else. The entire world is falling under the delusion that "each vote counts".
The world is utterly corrupt, ruled almost exclusively by monied interests. Jesus said:
"No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will
be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money."
Which is your choice?
I_left_the_left , Nov 16, 2020 10:29 AM Reply to Victor
Are voters really as corrupt as those they vote for?
Laurence Howell , Nov 16, 2020 12:44 PM Reply to I_left_the_left
No, just mis-informed
I_left_the_left , Nov 16, 2020 1:11 PM Reply to Laurence
Howell
Misinformed by the politicians and the MSM, presumably. So if establishment and career
politicians are the enemies of the people, then anti-politicians and populist outsiders who
want to drain the swamp deserve our fullest support.
They are programmed and propagandized, embracing the illusion that the electoral system is
not structured and controlled to make sure no significant change can occur, no matter who is
president. It is a sad reality promoted as democracy.
They will prattle on and give all sorts of reasons why they voted, and for whom, and how if
you don't vote you have no right to bitch, and how it's this sacred right to vote that makes
democracy great, blah blah blah. It's all sheer nonsense. For the U.S.A. is not a democracy;
it is an oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy.
This is not a big secret. Everybody knows this is true; knows the electoral system is
sheer show business with the presidential extravaganza drawing the big money from corporate
lobbyists, investment bankers, credit card companies, lawyers, business and hedge fund
executives, Silicon Valley honchos, think tanks, Wall Street gamblers, millionaires,
billionaires, et. al. Biden and Trump spent over 3 billion dollars on the election. They are
owned by the money people.
Both are old men with long, shameful histories. A quick inquiry will show how the rich have
profited immensely from their tenures in office. There is not one hint that they could change
and have a miraculous conversion while in future office, like JFK. Neither has the guts or the
intelligence. They are nowhere men who fear the fate that John Kennedy faced squarely when he
turned against the CIA and the war machine. They join the craven company of Johnson, Ford,
Carter, Reagan G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama. They all got the message that
was sent from the streets of Dallas in 1963: You don't want to die, do you?
Ask yourself: Has the power of the oligarchic, permanent warfare state with its propaganda
and spy networks, its vast intelligence apparatus, increased or decreased in the past half
century? Who is winning the battle, the people or the ruling elites? The answer is obvious.
It matters not at all whether the president has been Trump or Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or
George W. Bush, Barack Obama or George H. W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, or Jimmy Carter.
The power of the national security state has grown under them all and everyone is left to moan
and groan and wonder why.
All the while, the doll's house has become more and more sophisticated and powerful. It is
now essentially an electronic prison that is being "Built Back Better." The new Cold War now
being waged against Russia and China is a bi-partisan affair, as is the confidence game played
by the secret government intended to create a fractured consciousness in the population through
their corporate mass-media stenographers. Trump and his followers on one side of the coin;
liberal Democrats on the other.
Only those backed by the wealthy power brokers get elected in the U.S.A. Then when elected,
it's payback time. Palms are greased. Everybody knows this is true. It's called corruption. So
why would anyone, who opposes a corrupt political oligarchy, vote, unless they were casting a
vote of conscience for a doomed third-party candidate?
hether it's Tweedledee or Tweedledum – will result in the death and impoverishment of
so many, that being the end result of oligarchic rule at home and imperialism abroad.
Orwell called this Doublethink:
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them . To tell deliberate lies while genuinely
believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes
necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the
existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one
denies – all this is indispensably necessary.
And while in Nineteen Eighty-Four Doublethink is learned by all the Party members
"and certainly by all who are intelligent as well as orthodox," today in the USA, it has
been mastered even by the so-called unintelligent.
To live in the USA is to live in the Church of the Good Hustler.
People often ask: What can we do to make the country better? What is your alternative?
A child could answer that one: Don't vote if you know that both contenders are backed by the
super-rich elites, what some call the Deep State. Which of course they are. Everybody
knows.
Reply
I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 9:50 AM
"the U.S.A. is not a democracy; it is an oligarchy run by the wealthy for the wealthy."
Sorry, no. The whole point about Trump is that he is the great anti-politician, the outsider,
the patriot enemy of the corrupt ruling elites who only care about status, power and control,
not the interests of the American people or any other. By contrast, Biden is clearly the
perfect puppet of the oligarchy and political establishment. The ruling class expected their
ally Clinton to win in 2016, never Trump. The great election steal of 2020 is all about
reversing this little surprise, and to make sure that the irksome people power of US
democracy will finally be under full control. No more land of the free; the USA is now on the
cusp of becoming a leftist fascist dictatorship, in which US patriots are the new German
Jews, and in which future elections will be as meaningful as those of the Soviet Union.
A Texas Libertarian , Nov 18, 2020 6:05 AM
If you don't see that there is a big difference between Trump and Biden, then you are
still in the dollhouse. Trump certainly ain't perfect, but at least he wants to keep the
economy open. Biden is the lock down candidate. If that's all I knew about each of these
candidates, it'd be enough to vote for Trump. But there is a lot more.
Also, 'democracy' is the virus, not the cure, and Orwell was a dumb ass socialist.
Curmudgeon , Nov 17, 2020 11:55 PM
With all of his warts, Nixon did end the Vietnam war. Reagan ended the Cold War and
mutually assured destruction. Wilson got the US into WWI, FDR did WWII, Truman set up Korea
and Clinton tried to heat up Yugoslavia.
George Wallace circa 1965 said there wasn't a dimes worth of difference between the Democrats
and Republicans. They are different branches of the corporate party and globalists competing
for the speed of takeover. Trump is a corporatist but for all of his faults has gone off
script with his own corporatist agenda to cut in on the action, and the owners ain't havin'
it, because the Trumpian party is ever-so mildly nationalistic. Nationalism cannot be allowed
to rear its beautiful head, because people will love it. Trump is a turd, alright, but Biden
is a pile of shit.
I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 9:53 AM Reply to Curmudgeon
Would Biden end endless wars of intervention against the wishes of the neo-cons and
military-industrial complex, as Trump has been doing?
Wow what a hopeless and dreary world you live in. I left the dollhouse in the weeks after
9-11 when I realized the official narrative was full of holes. But I don't find the world out
here quite so dreary as you. Call me a dreamer, but I still believe that good always
(eventually) wins over evil, and I believe the ideals of America – the very same ones
that were probably sold to us as a fake bill of goods a long time ago – is REAL and not
an illusion because so many people believe in it. Perception is reality. Donald Trump despite
all his personal quirks and flaws I sincerely believe to be a deal maker who is interested in
protecting and serving the American people. Even if it's out of his own narcissism that he
wants to do so I'll take it. Regardless, one good thing that has come out of the last 4 years
is that I think a LOT of people have gotten "woke" in their own ways. Not all have left the
dollhouse yet but many have. Have faith in people.
Lysias , Nov 17, 2020 2:01 PM
If it made no difference who won, why were the elites so fanatically opposed to Trump?
It does make a difference cf. the mad scramble to get GWB elected in 2000. At that time
the rulers had decided on years of aggressive foreign policy therefore they need the "war
party" in. When Obama was pitted against the lame duck McCain it was time for some "smiley
face" rule with a surge in the woke factor with the first (gasp!) African American
president.
With Trump, I think it was a genuine shock when he was elected. Like Brexit in the UK, it
just wasn't supposed to happen! Trump is too much of a wild card. Too revealing. Suggesting
there's a deep state and actually taking conspiracies seriously? How dare he!. More to the
point, he's not getting with the covid program.
I_left_the_left , Nov 18, 2020 10:01 AM Reply to wardropper
Trump had the perfect billionaire's lifestyle, but gave it all up to run for the
presidency. He donated all presidential salary to good causes and says he has lost billions
by becoming president, unlike any other political leader you care to mention. More seriously,
he has put himself and family in grave danger by opposing the corrupt ruling classes of the
USA, and by his insolent attempt to 'drain the swamp'. In the near future, the elites will
persecute and try to imprison him and his family, to prevent any further rebellion against
their control in the land of the unfree.
We don't really know how fanatically opposed to him they actually are.
What the media choose to show us always has several layers of superficial, misleading crap
attached to it.
Appearing to be opposed to something is a pretty old trick, after all.
It covers your ass.
Lysias , Nov 17, 2020 10:50 PM Reply to wardropper
Paying off the BLM rioters? That's not something you do just to create an appearance.
"... If Biden steals this election, it will be Obama 2.0. If Biden's mental health declines, Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular democrats in modern history will be the President at least for the short term. The question is who will be her vice-president? ..."
"... "only votes for Biden and no down-ballot selections, which she regarded as suspicious" ..."
"... New York Post article ..."
"... "two pieces of software called Hammer and Scorecard were used to flip votes from Trump to Biden in some pre-election voting ballots." ..."
"... "declaring that trespassers will be removed from the White House." ..."
"... Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
If Biden steals this election, it will be Obama 2.0. If Biden's mental health declines,
Vice-President-Elect Kamala Harris, one of the most unpopular democrats in modern history will
be the President at least for the short term. The question is who will be her
vice-president?
Both of the US political parties, the Democrats and the Republicans are a one-party system
controlled by special interests no matter who is president .
It's fair to say that Trump's foreign policy was heading towards a dangerous path to a world
war as I have written about in the past.
Many of Trump's foreign policies are similar to past administrations whether they were
Democrats and Republican, the only difference that I can say is that he did not start any new
wars, he continued ongoing wars that was launched by his predecessors.
Trump's domestic policies are mixed at best with an economy built on debt through its
Federal Reserve's printing press that can never be repaid jeopardizing the US economy and it's
US dollar-based hegemony which are already in a steady decline. However, on a good note about
the Trump presidency is that he secured America's 2nd amendment rights (an important right to
have during uncertain times), expanded school choice for families and he cut taxes for
individuals' and small businesses. Despite a handful of successes on the domestic front, his
foreign policy is dangerous for world peace . However, it's fair to say Trump is a different
type of politician, one who openly expressed how he felt about certain people in politics or in
Hollywood and the mainstream-media (MSM) hated all of it, they despised Trump. The Democratic
party has been planning this scenario the day after Hillary Clinton lost the elections to
Donald Trump in 2016 with the Russia-Gate Hoax, allegations of sexual assaults, racism and
other anti-Trump shenanigans to remove the President. The Democrats were going to steal the
2020 elections no matter what with help from the MSM. If the Supreme court reverses Biden's
election win to a loss, giving Trump the victory by January 20th,violence will erupt on US
streets leading to a civil war among the American people, and that is certain.
Stolen Elections and Biden's Voter Fraud Organization
This election was rigged by the Democratic party, plain and simple. The so-called
"President-Elect" Joe Biden has admitted unconsciously that they put together an extensive
"voter fraud" organization in U.S. history:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/WGRnhBmHYN0
One of Trump's lawyers fighting the election fraud, Sidney Powell, said that 450,000 ballots
was found in several key states with "only votes for Biden and no down-ballot selections,
which she regarded as suspicious" according to a recent New York Post article who
also said that Powell claimed that "two pieces of software called Hammer and Scorecard were
used to flip votes from Trump to Biden in some pre-election voting ballots."
In Michigan, the vote had increased at one point to over 130,000 votes for Biden in the
middle of the night, without a single new vote for Trump while most people were asleep:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wLRITa1jHHw
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3P36qnU-Ozc
In Pennsylvania, former New York City Mayor and Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani made a press
statement on the fact that dead people were voting in Philadelphia:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/__fR2H_Bsu4
There will be many more whistleblowers, pollsters that were denied the access to observe the
vote count and average voters who will be exposing Biden's election as a fraud in the coming
days, weeks and months. This is just the beginning.
Mainstream Media Censorship In Your Face
This is perhaps the most in your face evidence that media censorship has been legitimized
against President Trump. The MSM now is fact-checking Trump in real-time claiming that he is
stating false-facts:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/F74MfjZWjI4
A Coming American Coup D'état?
The Biden regime had issued a warning to President Donald Trump "declaring that
trespassers will be removed from the White House." Former sportscaster Keith Olbermann has
even called for a coup against President Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/q_7f-DfmNNQ
The 2020 election was stolen from Trump, no doubt about that,
However, Trump and his administration knew that the Democrats were going to commit fraud
through mail-in ballots.
The US just became a banana republic, a dictatorship with Orwellian overtones that will
ensure a Democratic and the Neocon Republican establishment that will move forward with an
American-style scientific based-dictatorship.
Biden has prematurely announced a Covid-19 task force that will include planned lockdowns,
vaccine mandates and mandatory facemasks due to an increase in Covid-19 cases. The US is surely
heading towards what George Orwell has warned the world about. Make no mistake about it, there
will be a resistance, a human resistance that will ultimately prevail, and that I can say with
certainty.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your
email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally
published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.
The election is being stolen but once again the establishment dramatically misread the lay
of the political landscape among the American population. The adjustments that were made
ahead of time to the paperless electronic voting machines were not sufficient to overcome the
votes for Trump and so the establishment has to fall back on much more difficult and risky
approaches to cooking the count. To help cover this more challenging and time-consuming
operation the "Mighty Wurlitzer" has the mass media chanting in chorus that the Trump
Administration's charges of fraud are "baseless" before investigations can be done to
determine if the charges have a basis.
There will be no "revenge" against the Democrats. If the American public accepts
the results of the fraud then the establishment (Democrats and Republicans) will heave a
"Huuuge" sigh of relief for dodging the bullet and things will return to
"normal" as they were with previous presidents as figureheads for the State. There
will be nothing remotely like the ludicrous "Russiagate" hysteria that the mass media
indulged in against Trump. Something truly baseless will have to be found for the Republicans
to rant at the Democrats about like Obama's birth certificate, but the real issues will be
dropped like hot potatoes by both "teams" .
The establishment will then try to restart "Project for a New American Century" .
This is bad news for Syria as the "Assad Curse" will start getting more exercise
again. This is also bad news for Russia as the PNAC crowd are entirely certain that the
Russians are bluffing about engaging the Empire kinetically. They are Russians, after all,
right? You just have to push them hard enough like Reagan did and they will roll over.
At least that is what the PNAC crowd thinks. The PNACers rely for their brainpower on the
PMC ( "Professional, Managerial class" ), who as c1ue pointed out are "...
the middle managers, doctors, lawyers, MBAs, tenured professors, finance types and what not
who are divorced from the actual hands-on labor." That part about being "divorced from
the actual hands-on labor" is important because it means they have nothing mooring them
to reality.
[Aside: I have often mentioned that economics is the keystone social science, and
contemporary economics being based around vacuous capitalist apologetics renders the entire
realm of the social sciences a limp and constantly shifting mass of liquid shite with no
predictive power and only serving to sell pop culture self-help books. Psychology is where
the social sciences bump up against the biological sciences. This is how economics plays such
an important role in real (not pop) psychology. One's occupation; how one makes a living; how
one puts food on the table, is the core of human identity (skin tone isn't anywhere close).
The more that individuals fulfill employment roles that are entirely socially constructed and
the further they are from direct involvement in the process of transforming natural resources
into tangible items humans use for living, then the more tenuous and, to put it politely,
more "abstract" and subject to reinterpretation their association with physical
reality becomes. This is why c1ue 's PMCs, despite being very intelligent and highly
educated, can make such profound mistakes that get hayseed farmers scratching their heads in
amazement.]
The PNAC gang (Biden/Harris is their front) will now "shirtfront" Russia and
"get in their face" . They will escalate until they succeed at their plans. Trump's
escalations were almost entirely symbolic and meaningless, but the PNACer's escalations will
be kinetic. When Iran is once again forced to retaliate against the empire and
missile-strikes some US assets, the PNAC people will escalate and respond with ten times the
violence where Trump had ordered the empire to stand down.
Unfortunately for the empire, America's economic decline is systemic; it is baked into
capitalism. It cannot be reversed. While Trump hastened the empire's diplomatic decline and
poisoned its "soft power" , Biden/Harris will hasten the empire's economic
decline.
As for the Fort Detrick flu, the mass media will now try to downplay it in order to get
workers back to making the elites some profits, but the cases and fatalities will continue to
increase. There will be no more effective countering of the pandemic by Team Blue than Team
Red because the US simply doesn't have the tools, either medically, culturally, or socially,
to do anything about it.
Four years of the deep state/establishment exposing itself in panicked hysteria, only to
now fade back into the background with nothing gained from those four years. I wonder how the
posters here who think it was all part of an elaborate plan will spin their tales of the
omnipotent empire now that it can no longer be said "Trump hasn't started a war YET
but he will once he cements his image as 'Glorious Leader'!!"
Biden/Harris being installed in such an obvious manner is not a display of the
establishment's power, but rather is proof of their weakness and incompetence.
Financial oligarchy fully controls neoliberal Dems and this "scholar" does even use the term neoliberalism to describe the US elections.
What a jerk.
"Mitt Romney and Donald Trump agreed on basically every issue, as did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet, a bunch of people
changed their votes. And the reason that happened was because the salience of various issues changed." -- that a false, phoby statiment.
Election for Obama and for Hillary were conducted at the different stages of the crisis of neoliberalism. In Hillary case voters ejected
the candidate from neoliberal establishment.
David Shor got famous by getting fired. In late May, amid widespread protests over George Floyd's murder, the 28-year-old data
scientist tweeted out a study that found nonviolent
demonstrations were more effective than "riots" at pushing public opinion and voter behavior leftward in 1968.
Many Twitter users -- and
(reportedly) some of Shor's colleagues and clients at the data firm Civis Analytics -- found this post insensitive. A day later,
Shor publicly apologized for his tweet. Two
weeks after that, he'd lost his job as Civis's head of political data science -- and become a byword for the excesses of so-called
cancel
culture . (Shor has not discussed his firing publicly due to a nondisclosure agreement, and the details of his termination remain
undisclosed).
... ... ...
So there's a big constellation of issues. The single biggest way that highly educated people who follow politics closely are different
from everyone else is that we have much more ideological coherence in our views.
If you decided to create a survey scorecard, where on every single issue -- choice, guns, unions, health care, etc. -- you gave
people one point for choosing the more liberal of two policy options, and then had 1,000 Americans fill it out, you would find that
Democratic elected officials are to the left of 90 to 95 percent of people.
And the reason is that while voters may have more left-wing views than Joe Biden on a few issues, they don't have the same consistency
across their views. There are like tons of pro-life people who want higher taxes, etc. There's
a paper by the political scientist
David Broockman that made this point really famous -- that "moderate" voters don't have moderate views, just ideologically inconsistent
ones. Some people responded to media coverage of that paper by saying, "Oh, people are just answering these surveys randomly, issues
don't matter." But that's not actually what the paper showed. In a separate section, they tested the relevance of issues by presenting
voters with hypothetical candidate matchups -- here's a politician running on this position, and another politician running on the
opposite -- and they found that issue congruence was actually very important for predicting who people voted for.
So this suggests there's a big mass of voters who agree with us on some issues, and disagree with us on others. And whenever we
talk about a given issue, that increases the extent to which voters will cast their ballots on the basis of that issue.
Mitt Romney and Donald Trump agreed on basically every issue, as did Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. And yet, a bunch of people
changed their votes. And the reason that happened was because the salience of various issues changed. Both sides talked a lot more
about immigration, and because of that, correlation between preferences on immigration and which candidate people voted for went
up. In 2012, both sides talked about health care. In 2016, they didn't. And so the correlation between views on health care and which
candidate people voted for went down.
So this means that every time you open your mouth, you have this complex optimization problem where what you say gains you some
voters and loses you other voters. But this is actually cool because campaigns have a lot of control over what issues they talk about.
Non-college-educated whites, on average, have very conservative views on immigration, and generally conservative racial attitudes.
But they have center-left views on economics; they support universal health care and minimum-wage increases. So I think Democrats
need to talk about the issues they are with us on, and try really hard not to talk about the issues where we disagree. Which, in
practice, means not talking about immigration.
... ... ...
The problem is that swing voters don't trust either party. So if you get Democrats to embrace Abolish ICE, that won't get moderate-
ish , racist white people to support it; it will just turn them into Republicans. So that's the trade-off. When you embrace
unpopular things, you become more unpopular with marginal voters, but also get a fairly large segment of the public to change its
views. And the latter can sometimes produce long-term change.
But it's a hard trade-off. And I don't think anyone ever says something like, "I think it was a good trade for us to lose the
presidency because we raised the salience of this issue." That's not generally what people want. They don't want to make an unpopular
issue go from 7 percent to 30 percent support. They want something like what happened with gay marriage or marijuana legalization,
where you take an issue that is 30 percent and then it goes to 70 percent. And if you look at the history of those things, it's kind
of clear that campaigns didn't do that.
... ... ...
But ultimately, when people hear from both sides, they're gonna revert to some kind of partisan baseline. But there's not a nihilism
there; it's not just that Democratic-leaning voters will adopt the Democratic position or Republican-leaning ones will automatically
adopt the Republican one. Persuadable voters trust the parties on different issues.
And there's a pretty basic pattern -- both here and in other countries -- in which voters view center-left parties as empathetic.
Center-left parties care about the environment, lowering poverty, improving race relations. And then, you know, center-right parties
are seen as more "serious," or more like the stern dad figure or something. They do better on getting the economy going or lowering
unemployment or taxes or crime or immigration.
... ... ..
What's powerful about nonviolent protest -- and particularly nonviolent protest that incurs a disproportionate response from the
police -- is that it can shift the conversation, in a really visceral way, into the part of this issue space that benefits Democrats
and the center left. Which is the pursuit of equality, social justice, fairness -- these Democratic-loaded concepts -- without the
trade-off of crime or public safety. So I think it is really consistent with a pretty broad, cross-sectional body of evidence (a
piece of which I obviously tweeted at some point
) that nonviolent protest is politically advantageous, both in terms of changing public opinion on discrete issues and electing parties
sympathetic to the left's concerns.
As for "the abolish the police" stuff, I think the important thing there is that basically no mainstream elected officials embraced
it.
... ... ...
But there's always a mix of violent and nonviolent protest; or, there's always some violence that occurs at nonviolent protests.
And it's not a situation where a drop of violence spoils everything and turns everybody into fascists. The research isn't consistent
with that. It's more about the proportions. Because the mechanism here is that when violence is happening, people become afraid.
They fear for their safety, and then they crave order. And order is a winning issue for conservatives here and everywhere around
the world. The basic political argument since the French Revolution has been the left saying, "Let's make things more fair," and
the right saying, "If we do that, it will lead to chaos and threaten your family."
But when you have nonviolent protests that goad security forces into using excessive force against unarmed people -- preferably
while people are watching -- then order gets discredited, and people experience this visceral sense of unfairness. And you can change
public opinion.
... ... ..
So, as a result, campaigns centered around this cosmopolitan elite's internal disagreements over economic issues. But over the
past 60 years, college graduates have gone from being 4 percent of the electorate to being more like 35. Now, it's actually possible
-- for the first time ever in human history -- for political parties to openly embrace cosmopolitan values and win elections; certainly
primary and municipal elections, maybe even national elections if you don't push things too far or if you have a recession at your
back. And so Democratic elites started campaigning on the things they'd always wanted to, but which had previously been too toxic.
And so did center-left parties internationally
... .....
Many on the left are wary of the Democratic Party's growing dependence on wealthy voters and donors. But you've argued that the
party's donor class actually pulls it to the left,
as big-dollar Democratic donors are more progressive -- even on economic issues -- than the median Democratic voter. I'm skeptical
of that claim. After all, so much regulation and legislation never crosses ordinary Americans' radar. It seems implausible to me
that, during negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Obama administration
fought to export America's generous patent protections on pharmaceuticals to the developing world, or to expand the reach of
the Investor
State Dispute Settlement process, because they felt compelled to placate swing voters. Similarly, it's hard for me to believe
that the primary reason why Democrats did not significantly expand collective-bargaining rights under Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton,
and Barack Obama was voter hostility to labor-law reform rather than the unified opposition of business interests to such a policy.
So why couldn't it be the case that, when it comes to policy, a minority of big-dollar donors who are highly motivated -- and reactionary
-- on discrete issues pull the party to the right, even as wealthier Democrats give more ideologically consistent responses to survey
questions?
... ... ...
David Broockman showed in a recent paper
-- and I've seen this in internal data -- that people who give money to Democrats are more economically left wing than Democrats
overall. And the more money people give, the more economically left wing they are. These are obviously the non-transactional donors.
But people underestimate the extent to which the non-transactional money is now all of the money. This wasn't true ten years ago.
So then you get to the question: Why do so many moderate Democrats vote for center-right policies that don't even poll well? Why
did Heidi Heitkamp vote to
deregulate banks in 2018
, when the median voter in North Dakota doesn't want looser regulations on banks? But the thing is, while that median voter doesn't
want to deregulate banks, that voter doesn't want a senator who is bad for business in North Dakota. And so if the North Dakota business
community signals that it doesn't like Heidi Heitkamp, that's really bad for Heidi Heitkamp, because business has a lot of cultural
power.
I think that's a very straightforward, almost Marxist view of power: Rich people have disproportionate cultural influence. So
business does pull the party right. But it does so more through the mechanism of using its cultural power to influence public opinion,
not through donations to campaigns.
So, in your view, the reason that Democrats aren't more left wing on economic issues isn't because they're bought off, but because
the median voter is "bought off," in the sense of responding to cues from corporate interests?
... ... ...
So I think people underestimate Democrats' openness to left-wing policies that won't cost them elections. And there are a lot
of radical, left-wing policies that are genuinely very popular.
Codetermination is popular. A
job guarantee is popular. Large minimum-wage increases are popular and could literally end market poverty.
All these things will engender opposition from capital. But if you focus on the popular things, and manage to build positive earned
media around those things, then you can convince Democrats to do them. So we should be asking ourselves, "What is the maximally radical
thing that can get past Joe Manchin." And that's like a really depressing optimization problem. And it's one that most leftists don't
even want to approach, but they should. There's a wide spectrum of possibilities for what could happen the next time Democrats take
power, and if we don't come in with clear thinking and realistic demands, we could end up getting rolled.
... ... ...
The Senate is even worse. And much worse than people realize. The Senate has always been, on paper, biased against Democrats.
It overrepresents states that are rural and white, and mechanically, that gives a structural advantage to Republicans. For 50 years
or so, the tipping-point state in the Senate has been about one percentage point more Republican than the country as a whole. And
that advantage did go up in 2016, because white rural voters trended against us (it went up to 3 percent).
... ... ..
I think one big lesson of 2018 was that Trump's coalition held up. Obviously, we did better as the party out of power. But if
you look at how we did in places like Maine or Wisconsin or Michigan, it looked more like 2016 than 2012. Donald Trump still has
a giant structural advantage in the Electoral College.
Michael McCaffrey is a writer and cultural critic who lives in Los Angeles. His work can be
read at RT, Counterpunch and at his website mpmacting.com/blog . He is also the host of the popular cinema
podcast Looking California and
Feeling Minnesota. Follow him on Twitter @MPMActingCo 23:32 Biden's electoral victory has been met
with cheers, proving that gullible Americans are eager to get fooled once again.
A few hours ago I was startled by a collective shout that went out across my neighborhood
here in Los Angeles. I had no idea what all the noise was about, but people were making quite
an exuberant ruckus. After checking the news I quickly realized the cheers were due to the fact
that all the networks were officially calling the presidential race for Joe Biden.
I haven't heard that much happy screaming since a few weeks ago when the Dodgers won the
World Series, and before that when the Lakers won the NBA championship. It is apropos that
Angelinos would cheer Biden's victory the same way they celebrated their sports team's titles
as all of these events are nothing but a function of empty tribalism and vacuous emotionalism
that in the long run don't actually mean a damn thing.
For the fools here in the City of Angels celebrating Biden's victory, nothing will
fundamentally change in their lives, for good or for ill. They will still have to step over
hordes of homeless people and used needles and human excrement as they navigate this sick,
venal, miserable third world shithole trying, and usually failing, to scratch out a living and
to make ends meet.
Biden's rapturously received electoral victory is a vacant win for nothing but a
stylistic change. The hysterically happy masses around me are overjoyed because Biden isn't as
much of a boor as Trump, not exactly a high bar. That said, Biden will certainly be more of a
bore than Trump.
On substance, Biden is, like the Orange Man liberals love to loathe, a shameless
corporatist who will bend over backwards to fill the coffers of the fat cats in board rooms and
on Wall Street, all while screwing over poor, working and middle-class people.
Biden's ascension to the American throne is akin to the dreadful sitcom Two and a Half
Men replacing Charlie Sheen with Ashton Kutcher. The obnoxious Sheen and his "tiger blood"
were gone, but the show still really sucked and Kutcher was an annoying jerk in his own
right.
As far as Biden replacing Trump goes, for people like me, things will only change on the
surface and the sitcom that is American politics will still suck.
For instance, those who think public college should be tuition free for the working class
and student debt cancelled, meet Joe Biden, the man who was instrumental in getting a
bankruptcy bill passed that made it impossible to discharge student debt , thus damning
generations to indentured servitude to pay back school loans over-inflated through government
interference.
For people who think we should have universal health care, meet Joe Biden, an architect of
Obamacare, that insidious bill written by insurance companies that fleeces Americans by forcing
people to buy their abysmal product at exorbitant prices under force of law. Biden, similar to
Trump, has even promised to
veto any universal health care bill that would ever come to his desk.
For those opposed to Wall Street socializing losses while privatizing gains, meet Joe Biden,
who will, like Clinton, Bush, Obama and Trump before him, populate his administration with
nefarious Wall Street shills and despicable devotees of the Goldman Sachs cult who will
hungrily devour any taxpayer bailouts that they can get their hands on.
For peace loving people who think America should be less militaristic, belligerent and
bellicose abroad, meet Joe Biden, the man who voted for the
Iraq War that killed tens of thousands, and is a poodle to the Pentagon with an itchy
trigger finger to get tough with America's adversaries, be they real or imagined, across the
globe.
For those who think the drug war and criminal justice system are an abject failure, meet Joe
Biden, the man who wrote the 1994 Crime Bill that has given
America the dubious distinction of having the highest prison population rate in the entire
world.
For working class folks that have repeatedly gotten screwed by Washington's corporate
friendly free trade policies that decimated the manufacturing base in America and eventually
led to the rise of Donald Trump, meet Joe Biden, the
NAFTA -loving narcissist who pretends to be a man of the people but is really the lap dog
of big money interests.
For those who despised Trump for his war on the press, meet Joe Biden, who was vice
president for Obama, the man who waged more than a Trumpian rhetorical war on the press, but an
actual war on the press by using the
Espionage Act to prosecute whistleblowers more times than every other president in US
history combined.
For people outraged by Trump putting "kids in cages" as part of his crackdown on illegal
immigration, meet Joe Biden, who was vice president during the Obama administration which
aggressively deported
more immigrants than Trump and who also put "kids in cages".
For every emotionally triggered simpleton so gloriously giddy over Trump's demise and
Biden's rise: meet the new boss same as the old boss. You are all being fooled. Me I won't
get fooled again.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
But this is what left are about today, silencing people that dont agree with them on every
topic.
This is also how absurd the left have become, look back past years since Trump was elected
they are now OK with having a neocon foreign policy president Biden to be elected - just
because they hate Trump so much. Have you guys already forgotten 4 years of Russiagate?
Or are you guys watching Rachel Maddow for your foreign policy knowledge?
"If Biden wins, the best-case scenario is that we'll be forced to deal with a Democratic
Party of resurgent centrism, convinced that their path to victory is through vacuous
messaging calibrated to cause the least offense to the maximum number of people. They'll
insist that their future dominance is assured, normalcy has been restored, and that the
nightmare is over. With eyes fixed on a seemingly winning formula, they won't see who's
getting left behind again, or history repeating itself before their very eyes."
Everyone falsely assumes that 'winning' actually involves getting elected. If the term
'winning' is viewed as maintaining the status quo, propping up the rich at the expense of the
poor while robbing the State, then regardless of who is carrying out the agenda, the Dems
leadership and fundraisers are still 'winning'.
Many big corporations have an each way bet in elections and can rest comfortably knowing
that whomever is elected, be they Red or Blue, will always join the ranks of weak and corrupt
politicians, seeking corporate approval for reelection, chasing profits or a board seat once
retired, while regularly selling their voters out. That's how the game is played to 'win'.
Politicians are just pawns on the chessboard, racing to get to the other end with the promise
of being turned into a queen.
I can remember - 8 to 12 years ago - when Democrat primaries were not fixed. It's a
completely different beast in 2020. The entire Left is unrecognizable from 15 years ago. It
used to care more about wars in Iraq then Trannie washrooms!
Even with obvious fraud, you
still see them here making excuses for their Left wing candidate.
It seems that we all will have to fill up our popcorn supplies as the rather comical and
disgraceful
process of U.S. vote counting is likely to continue until maybe December 8, the safe harbor date on
which the states will have to certify their electors.
The race is nowhere near where the Democrats and their supporting media had expected it to
go. Just last week polls claimed that Biden would lead in Wisconsin
by 17 percent . The current margin is a rather dubious
0.6 percent which upcoming recounts may well eliminate.
That the Democrats lose House seats, do not win the Senate and barely manage to drag their
demented presidential candidate towards a stalemate tells a lot about their lack of sane
policies. A donor party completely disinterested in what the people really want - medicare for
all, no fracking etc. - will have little chance to survive a future onslaught of conservatives
with a more competent figure head than Donald Trump.
There will be protests, probably violent ones, and more legal action from either side. I see
no comprise possible that would satisfy both parties. I fear that, should Trump lose this
election.
Trumpism will only grow and make the U.S. ungovernable.
Maybe Trump and Biden could publicly draw straws to get over with it.
I did not support #DemExit before tonight. But I just got off the phone with my 24 year old daughter. She's depressed as hell
by what we all see, because they are not bothering to hide it anymore. I could not promise her things will get better, because
they won't.
We do not have a democracy, we have an #oligarchy and when shit hits the fan (as it will sooner than later), our nation
will become another dictatorship or military junta.
So, I'm done with the party system, because we only have one party - the party
for and by the rich. I'm abandoning the Democratic party because it abandoned us for corporate cash decades ago. That's all I
have to say. End of story.
reporting that 82% is in. If so then Biden would need to get 67% of the remaining votes. He's currently at 27%. What are the
odds that such a huge number of Biden votes would now come in? Zero, of course. There's no chance of it and Bernie has won California.
But CNN, for one, is still refusing to call it for him. They had no problem calling Michigan, though, with something like 18%
in.
Perhaps Bernie will hold on and win Washington. We'll see. Tulsi has over 8,500 votes so far. If we were to emulate the Hillbots
we'd be screaming at her, saying she hurt Bernie!!! ! But we don't do that because we're more aware.
#2 Said results won't
be available until tomorrow. We still don't have full results from California...
@Shahryar@Shahryar
Meanwhile, Bernie shows at 14.8%, below the 15% threshold.
I did not have an instant of anger at Tulsi, only sadness.
Sadness
that the mockery of democracy that holds sway in this country would repeatedly set us up for those ridiculous attacks that someone
has been a "spoiler".
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal involving
Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of that claim by
the FBI .
In her interview with Joe Biden, CBS anchor Norah O'Donnell did not push Biden to simply
confirm that the emails were fake or whether he did in fact meet with Hunter's associates
(despite his prior denials). Instead O'Donnell asked: "Do you believe the recent leak of
material allegedly from Hunter's computer is part of a Russian disinformation campaign?"
Biden responded with the same answer that has gone unchallenged dozens of times:
"From what I've read and know the intelligence community warned the president that
Giuliani was being fed disinformation from the Russians. And we also know that Putin is
trying very hard to spread disinformation about Joe Biden. And so when you put the
combination of Russia, Giuliani– the president, together– it's just what it is.
It's a smear campaign because he has nothing he wants to talk about. What is he running on?
What is he running on?"
It did not matter that the answer omitted the key assertion that this was not Hunter's
laptop or emails or that he did not leave the computer with this store.
Recently, Washington Post columnist Thomas Rid wrote
said the quiet part out loud by telling the media:
"We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Let that sink in for a second. It does not matter if these are real emails and not Russian
disinformation. They probably are real but should be treated as disinformation even though
American intelligence has repeatedly r ebutted that claim. It does not even matter that the
computer has seized the computer as evidence in a criminal fraud investigation or that a Biden
confidant is now giving his allegations to the FBI under threat of criminal charges if he lies
to investigators.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
It simply does not matter. It is disinformation because it is simply inconvenient to treat
it as real information.
Bastiat , 3 hours ago
I should have lost the capacity for shock in reaction to this Mockingbird crap but the
sheer naked audacity of it still gets me.
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
I don't know what is worse. The concept that hiding crimes is no longer that important or
the lack of response to the crimes by so many.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
I don't know what's worse. The fact that our supposed news networks do this, or the fact
that in spite of the vast majority of Americans saying they distrust them, they still let
them get away with it. They still watch, and read, and listen. TBH, I don't think the lack of
MSM coverage is an issue with this particular story. I think the average Democrats and RINOs
are just covering their eyes and ears with this one. They want Trump to lose so bad, they
don't care if day one of the Biden administration is him handing suitcases of military
hardware blueprints to the Chinese. Anyone with a (D), never Trump, keep the swamp churning.
That's all they care about.
Four chan , 25 minutes ago
the laptop and its contents are 100% verified with clean chain of control.
UndergroundPost , 3 hours ago
It's now clear the Democrat Party under the Biden / Clinton Dynasties is nothing more than
a fully compromised, corrupt and criminal extension of the Communist Party of China
SDShack , 3 hours ago
Absolutely! The timelines of everything line up perfect. These laptops were dropped off at
the computer shop in early 2019. Work was done, but not paid for. The owner tried to get paid
and have the laptops picked up for 3 months. No go, so abandoned property now belongs to the
computer shop. All perfectly legal. It's now fall 2019 and the Impeachment Sham related to
Ukraine is starting. Computer shop realizes that laptops belonged to Demorat VP son being
caught up in the entire Impeachment Sham. Computer shop guy realizes he is holding dynamite
with lit fuse so he contacts FBI. FBI does nothing, then gets involved, then sits on the
story. This is all end of 2019.
Meanwhile, demorat primaries are starting and Bernie is the leader. DNC can't have Bernie
win, so they try to game the system to stop him just like 2016. But no one early on can do
it. Senile Joe fails first. Then Kamalho, who was the favorite, flames out. Then all the
others. It's now early 2020 and the DNC is hemorrhaging money and in disarray. Then look what
happens, the DNC miraculously unities around Senile Joe to stop the Angry Berd, with Kamalho
being the fallback position as VP. It is clear that the CCP ordered the DNC to do this
because they had the goods on Corrupt Joe, and the DNC needs the Chicom money. They all
figured they had it all covered up. They never figured on the crazy cokehead son blowing it
all up. The timelines all line up, and explain why Senile Joe rose from the dead in the
primaries to be the anointed one, along with Kamalho. The CCP got the candidates they bought
and paid for.
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
100% true but the republican government refuses to prosecute their buddies. The US has 1
party and we ain't invited.
Robert De Zero , 3 hours ago
It isn't real, we hope it isn't real, you can't prove it's real, 50 experts said it isn't
real, Russia planted it, Russian disinformation, Rudy is compromised, Rudy might be a Russian
agent, Rudy almost banged a 24 YO and he can't be trusted, It's not about Joe we don't care,
Hunter isn't running, Bobulinski has a funny name so he can't be trusted...NOT ONCE ASKING IF
THIS IS a MAJOR PHUCKING PROBLEM.
The problem isn't RUSSIA, it's you bastards in the Big Lies Media!
GoldmanSax , 1 hour ago
Why hasn't the patriotic republicans arrested the evil democrats? Whats the hold up?
tonye , 3 hours ago
At some point we are going to have to break up the corporate media conglomerates.
All of them.
And start racketeering prosecutions.
Salsa Verde , 3 hours ago
Facts mean nothing in a country where emotional outbursts are now considered gospel.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I think we need to bring back the death penalty in every state and not keep housing these
criminals for lifetimes.
Zorch , 2 hours ago
Wait! What does Gretta say?
VisceralFat1 , 3 hours ago
so... the hunter laptop is fake
and global warming is real
got it
jin187 , 3 hours ago
You just summed up the only thing 90% of students actually learn from 12 years of public
school.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
correct on both points
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
duh...
the Feds have plenty of laptops that have incriminating evidence of our elected leaders
(Wasserman Schultz, Iman Brothers, Weiner, DNC Servers, etc...), Dems and Repubs
at issue is if we REALLY knew the depths of treason from said leaders, we'd run out of
rope and tall trees...
so...anyone who votes Democrat, is complicit in my eyes (and they don't need to vote
Republican) and deserve the heat of the truth, strong enough to melt all the
snowflake-SJW's
Carbon Skidmark , 3 hours ago
ban laptops...it's so simple...no laptops and bad things stop happening
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
/sarc
banned public schools first...they're indoctrination centers of controlled deception
NO critical thinking...NO innovative strategies
ONLY State sponsors 'information' filtered by the snowflakes anti-social media platforms
and e-encyclopedia (Schmoogle)
11b40 , 3 hours ago
Ban email & instant messages. Life would be immediately better.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Dorsey looks like a fvcking homeless person. What a clown. I'd love to rip that ring right
out of his nose.
sunhu , 2 hours ago
losers anger is always fun to watch
chubbar , 3 hours ago
The media is acting against the best interests of the USA. Think about it, "IF" the
allegations are true, we need to find out BEFORE we elect someone who is selling out our
country for personal gain, not after. WHY would the media think differently unless they don't
care whether the allegations are true or not? Are they working for China? Is the DNC? These
are appropriate lines of inquiry given the wholesale censoring the media has levied on the
Biden corruption story. The FBI sat on this for months and it has Child ****, which means
children remain at risk until the FBI goes in and stops it. WTF is wrong with Wray that he
allows this to go on?
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
Dude, if it was for real Hunter Biden would have been arrested by now. You can't seriously
believe they're just holding back their damning evidence. The obvious conclusion is they
don't have it.
Mr. Universe , 2 hours ago
...except those pictures of a naked Hunter with his niece and the emails of the family
trying to keep a lid on Mom's protestations.
You see lots of pics of Hunter Biden with a blacked out bitch. No way of knowing who he's
actually with.
hugin-o-munin , 2 hours ago
Yeah like duh really man, I mean come on man. Stop thinking so much man, hang ten and
chill bruh.
8-(
Im4truth4all , 2 hours ago
Has Comey, Clapper, Strozk and the list goes on ad infinitum, been arrested? No.
ebear , 1 hour ago
"The obvious conclusion is they don't have it."
An inference, by itself, is not a conclusion.
Soloamber , 2 hours ago
Wray inherited a completely screwed up Comey FBI .
He is not a culture changer .
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Stop calling these people mainstream. There is nothing mainstream about them because
nobody watches their crap.
Joe Rogan's show last night got more views than all of them combined.
WhatDoYouFightFor , 3 hours ago
Hunter is still walking around free, system is F'd. Nothing will right the United States
at this point.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
it's the Hillary conundrum, right?
IF they get Hunter, it's 'election interference'...
deceitful godless individuals...
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
But but but Her Emails
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
he will always be free on these items as the evidence was all acquired illegally and
likely doctored to all hell.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is why I said the day Trump got elected that these people just need to disappear to a
blacksite in Yemen. The best way to drain the swamp is waterboarding all the ones we know to
find the ones we don't know.
Ghost of Porky , 3 hours ago
If Trump rescued 30 drowning children with his helicopter the CNN headline would read
"Trump Increases Carbon Footprint to Risk Superspreader Event.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Exactly - so tired of MSM and their opinionated lies
pstpetrov , 3 hours ago
Yes Liberals are all about disinformation and Trump has the moral high ground.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Best joke I've heard in October. Well played, sir!
otschelnik , 3 hours ago
How would the MSM react if Don Jr. flew into China on AF1 with his father, met with
Chinese central committee members and intelligence officials, formed a Joint Venture with
them and then got a 5 million dollar no interest loan from the head of a private oil company,
who's chairman used to work in intelligence?
Imagine that. How would ABC MSNBC CNN NPR WaPo NYT PBS broadcast that?
glasshour , 3 hours ago
Better question, who cares. Nobody watches that junk anymore.
fanbeav , 3 hours ago
Liberal sheeple still do.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Let's get the case in a court of law so allegations and wild claims can be proven or
disproven. But wait, this was timed so court isn't an option. So all we are left with is the
sniff test. Smells like baby diaper needs changed.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
How did they react when it was Kushner doing the traveling and getting the money for his
business?
Iconoclast422 , 3 hours ago
the computer has seized the computer as evidence
Why does every article have these little tidbits that make me think every writer has
stroked out in 2020?
11b40 , 3 hours ago
You see that, too? Something is wrong in the editing process. Sloppy, I guess, or
foreign.
Santiago de Mago , 3 hours ago
I noticed that in several articles today... almost like they are being written by AI
bots.
"My Macaroni And Cheese Is A Lesbian Also She Is My Lawyer"
balz , 3 hours ago
Every time you see someone saying they are a "journalist" at a MSM, don't forget to tell
them they are wrong and their job-title is "propagandist".
Shut. It. Down. , 2 hours ago
Some of the emails have already been verified by the outside recipient or sender.
Next you'll tell me all the sex videos were photoshopped by Putin.
KayaCreate , 1 hour ago
I lost 5 mins of my life watching Hunters **** getting kicked around by a probable minor
while smoking crack. You could tell it was him as his fake teeth glowed in the dark.
Cephisus , 3 hours ago
The media are scum.
Bill of Rights , 3 hours ago
Funny isn't it, every time the Globalist are exposed its " Disinformation " ..Hows that
Russian Collusion evidence coming along? its only been four years.....
American2 , 2 hours ago
The only question remaining to ask is simply this: Who is more enfeebled, Joe Biden; or
the networks and ABC, NBC, CBS, NY Times, WaPo, LA Times?
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
I have been out of f*cks to give when it comes to the MSM for a decade now. What is so
comical is that when the MSM so overtly covers for candidates, it backfires horribly. You
can't hyperventilate over an anonymously sourced Trump tax return story and yet ignore the
Biden laptop. People see right through that.
randocalrissian , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes were made public. Nobody knows where Biden's (or whoever's) laptop came
from. Giuliani is already very late with the promised salacious details. How many people do
you think are really changing their vote to the Domestic Terrorist in the WH?
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
I know of one person
Invert This MM , 3 hours ago
You are a freaking Share Blue Clown. Nobody buys your monkey dung
IndicaTive , 3 hours ago
You know me so well, after 3 months of trolling here.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
You really are one stupid fuuk. You just outed one of your sockpuppets and I was purged in
the Google crack down. I have been posting here for 12 years. You monkeys are really
stupid.
Invert This MM , 2 hours ago
Hey Monkey, I was purged during the Google shake dawn. Been here 14 years. Like a complete
moron, you just outed one of your sockpuppets. Dumbass
replaceme , 3 hours ago
No serious Dem thinks the laptop isn't Hunter's - your supposed to ignore it, or pretend
it has nothing to do with Joe. The Russians, booga boogah
invention13 , 3 hours ago
No, his taxes weren't made public. Claims about his taxes were made public - there is a
difference which you seem happy to elide.
CosmoJoe , 3 hours ago
Trump's taxes as reported by the NY Times were NOT made public, what gives you that idea.
The info was leaked to the Times.
jin187 , 3 hours ago
This is what I want to know. How is it that the NYP is still banned from Twitter based on
them obtaining information "illegally or illicitly", when we know for a fact now that they
didn't? At the same time, I'm pretty sure that the NYT and their followers are still happily
linking and chatting away about the story on how they illegally obtained Trump's tax
returns.
wearef_ckedwithnohope , 3 hours ago
Matt Taibbi has written a series of articles bemoaning the current state of
journalism.
replaceme , 3 hours ago
What's journalism?
invention13 , 3 hours ago
I'm beginning to think it is something that never really existed - just an ideal in some
people's minds.
Shillelagh Pog , 2 hours ago
Journalism is putting down on paper your, or someone you like, or is paying you for,
feelings, duh.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
He has the same issues with his journalism.
starcraft22 , 1 hour ago
The laptop is real. The media is the foreign disinformation.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
Just shocking how MSM is so quick to dismiss this shocking evidence. We know it's not part
of their brainwashing echo chamber of lies for their low IQ and low informed voters but had
this been one of Trump's sons laptops - this would be MAJOR HEADLINES for the next 12
months.
Remember the 4 year Russiangate investigation, 40 million to Robert Mueller all based on a
bought and paid dossier paid for by the DNC/Clinton foundation, corrupt FBI, FISA warrants
all to spy and setup Trump to incriminate him for the VERY same crimes they were in FACT
committing.
Ar15ak47rpg7 , 2 hours ago
Note to all Zero HEDGERS....there seems to be no difference between the scrubbing of
comments on Twitter and Facebook and ZH. The free flow of ideas on ZH no longer exist. Just
like the Drudge Report the Deep Stater's have gotten to the Tylers. Beware
One of these is not like the others.. , 2 hours ago
I concur, the more thoughtful the post, the more likely it seems to vanish.
ebear , 1 hour ago
I must be an idiot then. As much as I'd like to add that badge to my collection, my stuff
never seems to get scrubbed. Damn!
Urfa Man , 3 minutes ago
Gulag and the shrews that run it are putting big financial pressure on ZH to censor us.
This month I've twice tried to post a URL for the news article that details the censorship
here, but go figure, those posts get scrubbed.
It's all because of you and me. The Bolsheviks at Gulag say this comment section hurts
feelings and therefore must be dominated and controlled with an iron fist.
Gulag Bans ZeroHedge From Ad Platform
If you replace "Gulag" with the name of a major search engine and conduct a search using
the words in italics above - via a search engine like duckduckgo - the results will probably
point you to the news article that gives the details of this ZH censorship and why your
comments disappear.
lacortenews com is the domain that carries the news report
Good luck. There's not much left of free speech or the original freedom of the
internet.
unionbroker , 3 hours ago
A business associate of mine told me with a straight face that he didn't trust Bobulinski
because he had a Russian sounding name. He is on Twitter a lot so maybe that explains it.
slightlyskeptical , 3 hours ago
I don't trust him either. He has already changed his story. he requested to meet Joe Biden
and then later he didn't request it. . And he met him, but he didn't have a meeting with him.
He confirmed that on Fox last night.
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
I trust him 100% #imwithhim
remember Dr Christine Ford and her fake as story against Kavanaugh - this is much more
realistic than her fake as
Republicans can play dirty too
jin187 , 2 hours ago
Yeah, this is what it's come to, so **** it. I hope Rudy is out there right now handing
out suitcases of cash to anyone willing to come forward with any lies about Biden, Pelosi,
Schumer, just like our side's Gloria Steinem.
Zerogenous_Zone , 3 hours ago
bring him in under oath and actually investigate...
BUT that would be 'election interference' (you know, the whole Hillary conundrum,
right?)
rule of law is now changed to morality of feelings...if it makes me feel insignificant, it
CAN'T be TRUE!!
WAAAHHHHHH
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
he will testify under oath watch - and he won't be like pencil neck Schiff and those other
cowards and plea the 5th
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
???
you could watch the Tucker Carlson show interview instead of your imagined one.
Uh... did watch it. And yes, the story he tells there about meeting Biden is not the same
as the one he told before. Riddle me this: if this is real, why would they hopelessly
compromise their chain of evidence by dribbling it to the public like this?
Stable-Genius , 3 hours ago
because no one in the MSM would dummy - they are all in DEEP ****
somewhere_north , 3 hours ago
They don't have to use the MSM, or any media. They simply arrest Hunter Biden, then drop
all the info at once instead of tantalizingly holding the smoking guns out of our view. All
they are doing here, if they actually have anything, is risking the lives of their witnesses
and giving the perps a lot of warning. That's to say nothing about compromising the evidence
to the point of inadmissability. It's running a risk for no gain whatsoever.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
stuff is only out of your view if your eyes are closed
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
"not the same" ?
missed your weblink (not that you could be making stuff up, cough, cough.)
also, how that would have any significant bearing on the whole matter,
including most MSM news censorship and Russia nonsense ?
RedNeckMother , 3 hours ago
Who told you that bulls hit?
calculator , 2 hours ago
It's entirely possible he is military intelligence and was sent undercover to infiltrate
the Bidens and discover their treachery. The CIA and FBI sure as hell don't appear to be
doing it. Since we may very well be in a shooting war with the CCP at some point in the near
future, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the military is actually doing their jobs to ensure
we are not compromised.
SDShack , 3 hours ago
We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign intelligence operation --
even if they probably aren't."
Cmon Turley, parse these words> Why does the WaPo say 'WE MUST' treat these leaks this
way? This implies that the WaPo is BEING ORDERED to treat these leaks this way! So WHO has
power over the WaPo? Is that power direct, or financial, or BOTH? Also the assumption the
WaPo is trying to propagate is that the Foreign Intelligence Operation is...THE
RUSSIANS...but could it not actually be the CCP that is pulling the WaPo strings? Doesn't the
CCP revelation go to the central heart of the entire Corrupt Joe matter, as well as the
financial angle for the Bezo's Amazon WaPo? Even in their lies, the nuggets of hidden truth
are exposed.
Amel , 3 hours ago
Asking yourself why the CIA control of the MSM favors a Manchurian candidate over Trump ?
Because the CIA's own survival is valued above national security.
invention13 , 3 hours ago
For they same reason they had to treat the Russian collusion allegations as though they
were real.
LetThemEatRand , 3 hours ago
Same reason there was no outrage at the Obama child cages at the Mexico border. Or outrage
at all of the wars Obama started. Or outrage at all of the drone killing under Obama.
Most Blue Team members are satisfied getting their news from MSM, leaving MSM able to
shape the narrative almost completely. There are a handful of guys like Jimmy Dore on the
left who call out the rest of the left on this. Pretty scary, actually.
factorypreset , 3 hours ago
It sure seems like the press is helping to squash this whole thing by asking any questions
in such a way that Joe doesn't perjure himself.
mtl4 , 3 hours ago
Yesterday, former Vice President Joe Biden was again insisting that the scandal
involving Hunter Biden's laptop was Russian disinformation despite the direct refutation of
that claim by the FBI.
All makes perfect sense in a time when you chose your gender in the morning while getting
dressed, you only need to be accused of anything to completely ruin your reputation (unless
your a politician in which case there are no laws). So why would anyone deal with reality at
a time when we've gotten so good at simply ignoring it.
He forgot to mention Trump University as a shining example of Trump morality. Both men are
are crooks. One of corrupt neoliberal politician who is the worst type of crooks, the person who
is on same small moral level as child molesters.
Notable quotes:
"... How The Bidens Earned $16.7 Million After Leaving The White House, ..."
"... Barack and Michelle Obama net worth 2020, ..."
Even setting all that aside, though, being a U.S. Senator for 36 years and then a Vice
President for eight can be mighty remunerative. You don't have to be sensationally crooked: A
U.S. Senator has enormous influence, a Vice President even more, and the money will come
looking for you.
Forbes has the details of Biden's post-Vice-Presidential income growth:
Absent the principled restraint of a Truman or a Menzies you just have to sit back and let
the gifts, the fees, the favors, the "contributions," the stock options roll in. (Barack and
Michelle Obama's net worth is estimated at $40 million -- each! [
Barack and Michelle Obama net worth 2020, by Margaret Abrams, London Evening
Standard, February 19, 2020.])
So comparing these two guys, there is a strong moral case in favor of Trump.
Lol, giving praise to a Slimeball who screw his siblings, with business skills "so great"
that he had to file bankruptcy several times to screw the banks (for a change). No guts to
show his tax returns because everybody would see what he really is, a complete sham.
No US bank would deal with him and he had to find some stupid foreign bank like Deutche Bank
to screw.
No wonder the US is so so so screwed. What a joke. Dozens of third world countries that Trump
like to call " sh ** hole countries " are leaving US in the dust, when it comes to choice of
leaders. Fact is, this so called Beacon of Democracy is long dead, only a name remains. If US
wanna prove to the world that it still stands for equality before the law, have him tried and
jail after he loses the election.
So trump is superior to biden because he is a corrupt capitalist, while biden is a corrupt
politician? Got news for the israeli prostitute writing this likudite toss. BOTH TRUMP AND
BIrEN ARE CORRUPT TO THE MAX AND TRAITORS, AS WELL. EQUALLY. Put that in your pipe and smoke
it, israeli.
Of all the efforts to boost Trump, this one appears to be the closest to a joke. Only the
braindead can believe in Trump's morality or that he's a self-made man. Both Biden and Trump
are rotten to the core. US presidential elections are never about who's morally better,
they're always about who's the lesser evil and their only purpose is to continue the
legitimacy of evil.
@Peter Akuleyev billionaire and he took the presidency right from under the Democrat's
entitled noses. Regardless of whether he's a good man or not, he pulled the covers off a
heinously corrupt, hostile culture of subversion present within the American left and has
inoculated millions of Americans to their effects. The left cannot work any further in the
shadows, the alphabet organizations are known to be untrustworthy, self-serving cunts and
normal people are now aware of Epstein after years of Alex Jones yelling into space about
him.
And beyond that, the man's a hero for stymieing the Zionist takeover of the middle east
which the last 20+ years of presidencies have enabled. Greater Israel isn't getting Syria
while Trump is president.
If you can make any kind of appeal from personal morality, that's a big plus.
Trump can -- but he doesn't, I don't know why.
It's way outside his wheelhouse, that's why. Unfortunately, so are many other things even
more germane to governing, not to mention running for office. He got lucky in 2016 because
Hillary Clinton was even more of a horror show than Biden and Harris combined. We'll see what
happens this time–all too soon. The Forces of Reaction are particularly well-focused
though.
Don't mistake me. It's not like Trump losing will be good for America. The Democrats
already have their plans in place for cementing their rule as a permanent, single-party
dictatorship. I've been working on a list of expected results and if anyone wants to add
items I'd be grateful for ideas.
Trump tries a lot of things so he naturally fails at a lot of things, but he doesn't fail
at everything . Plenty of stories of successful men like that.
I agree with Derb's point. Trump leaves a lot of red meat on the table. He should have a
ready-made death blow for every subject, gotcha question and accusation that comes up, but he
seems to be too impatient and undisciplined to more fully prepare himself. He also goes off
on petty tangents now and then. I surely admire his energy, though. He's fat and old enough
to be my father, but there's no way I could keep up with him. He had Covid for all of five
minutes.
@Peter Akuleyev ess person could come back from bankruptcy. Trump's lawyer–son of
an Orthodox rabbi Friedman who is now the Ambassador to Israel– drove a coach and
horses through the newly lenient bankruptcy laws, enabling Trump to bilk his creditors like
he always had his contractors (by saying 'the project will collapse and you'll get unless you
agree to be satisfied with less that the originally stipulated amount).
Wall Street distrusted Trump as a result of his repeated rising like a financial phoenix
from the financial ashes of tactical bankruptcies, so he paid a price in the denial of his
access to new capital, which may have had an underappreciated effect on his thinking. He is a
renegade and a traitor to his class, but not to his country.
The U.S.A., as every foreigner notices, is an intensely moralistic nation. If you can
make any kind of appeal from personal morality, that's a big plus.
Trump can -- but he doesn't, I don't know why.
My impression is, that Donald Trump does not understand this kind of subject at all.
– And that that hangs loosely together with the – I can't resist, sorry –
huge (I hear him right in my ear now ) – with the huge fact, that he
indeed, as you pointed rightfully out above, did make his money in business and that he is a
businessman throughout. He is basically a utilitarian – and utilitarians act as if
– morals and ethics, etc. would not be necessary really, not in the first place, for
sure.
@Peter Akuleyev unny in a obscene way to see Trump's most exuberant fans foist upon him
the mantra "Drain the swamp!" What is he to do but run with it? The difference between the
careerist swamp creature Biden and the outsider Trump is that while the one is highly
corruptible the other is downright corrupt. If the social virtues of integrity, honesty,
empathy, courage, politeness, magnanimity and so forth may be said to make the building
blocks of high social organization and flourishing, the embodiment of antisocial forces of
social decay – dishonesty, envy, greed, insecurity – would seem foolish to hold
up as lead representative of some movement of revitalization. Better to be in the wilderness
with leaders of some earnestness and vision than in the palace with Commodus.
Trump Organization is still standing. In a business based on real estate that is actually
quite a feat. Blame the bankers if you want for both Trump's successes and failures. But it
is still survival unlike Biden's pay to play game. Although calling it "Biden's" is a
misnomer, the political lifers all play that game. Grooming your sons to be your grift's
prostitutes might be unique, but unfortunately at this point I doubt that.
This argument holds no water. Trump allowed the entire economy to be shut down over
scientific fraud, which was the worst business decision made in world history. Biden is the
same. Both candidates are economic terrorists and economic hitmen. The facts prove it.
Ignoring the specifics of Trump and Biden, the issue that there is a moral distinction
between making money in business and making money in politics is totally absurd, because
these are today the same thing!
Most modern wealthy people do NOT make their money competitive industries: they basically
get it by stealing from the public treasury. Tens of trillions in Wall Street bailouts and
ongoing subsidies, trillions in endless pointless winless wars that serve only to enrich
politically connected defense contractors, "public-private partnerships" where the public
puts up the money and takes the risk, and the "private" rich get guaranteed profits no matter
how it turns out The robber-barons of the 19th century at least built things, and had to
compete, the modern rich are just welfare queens on a vast scale.
But the rich only get away with this because they have bribed politicians like Joe Biden
to let them! So both "businessmen" and "politicians" are morally the same thing.
@Anon ound it's young, white 20 something conservative males who are seeing their future
destroyed before their eyes. Seeing Americans walking around with what amounts to respiratory
diapers on their face is disgusting, pathetic and embarrassing. The elderly, who for the most
part have overall lived the peak American dream, are living in hysteria and fear. The boomers
in America are confirmed now as some of the most selfish, self absorbed, and enfranchised
generations ever. To blame the covid deaths on Trump is the most stupid and intellectually
dishonest argument in this whole election narrative. Dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery
you want to wear a worthless diaper on your face fine .don't force tyranny on the rest of us!
The worst thing to do is give the Democrats a supermajority.
Not voting would have turned the US into California.
They would raise taxes even higher and they would also ban most guns instead of facing the
harsh truth of Black crime. California has some of the highest taxes and yet they still blame
their education failures on Whites for not paying enough.
Both parties are in fact evil but giving one side complete control is a very bad idea.
That is what not voting would do. The Democrats can always get the votes of people that are
desperate. One reason I don't like US style conservatism is because it really doesn't have a
plan to help the working poor and this plays into the hands of Democrats
Maybe it's a form of Gresham's Law. How long could you work with sociopathic liars like
Schiff and Schumer while other sociopaths in the media report that you are the real
sociopathic liar? How long would you want to?
Plus, a serious statesman would discuss trade-offs and the American voter isn't good with
trade-offs.
Leftism, no matter what you call it, has always been dysgenic and always will be. It is a
"philosophy" embraced by those unable to surrender their dream for an impossible to achieve
perfect world for an imperfect and achievable good one.
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 neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies. ..."
"... One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony at home. ..."
The neocon/NATO aggressive expansionism has many purposes, but one is surely domestic
repression: to gaslight and cause fear-the-foreign-bogeyman trauma among the American and
British people as a whole and make most of them become docile and lose their critical
thinking skills and their ability to analyze their own societies.
One of the best ways to lobotomize the publics of the US and UK is to very gradually
impose martial law in the name of protecting national security and ensuring peace and harmony
at home.
After several color revolutions succeeded, the Russiagate/Spygate op was carried out in
the US, with British assistance. This op has been largely successful, though there has been
limited resistance against its whole fake edifice as well as with the logic of Cold War2.0.
Nevertheless, Spygate has shocked many tens of millions of Dems into a stupor, while millions
more are dazed and manipulated by the Chinese bogeyman being manufactured by Trump.
The most dangerous result of the martial law lite mentality caused by Spygate and its MSM
purveyors is the growing support for censorship of free speech coming mostly from the Dems,
such as Schiff and Warner. The danger inherent in this trend became very clear when FaceBook
and Twitter engaged in massive and unprecedented arbitrary censorship of the New York Post
and of various Trump-related accounts.
This is the kind of thing you do during Stage 1 of a coup. Surely it was at least in part
an experiment to see how various power points in the US would respond. Even though Twitter
ended the censorship later, it was probably a successful experiment designed to gauge
reactions and areas of resistance.
In November, there could be further, more serious experiments/ops. If so, the current
expansionist movements being made and planned by the US and NATO may well be integral parts
of a new non-democratic model of "American-style democracy" -- not constitution-based but
"rules-based."
SUBSCRIBE SEARCH Neoliberal centrists and phony fascists as political tools of the
capitalist classes in an escalating warOctober
15, 2020 globinfo freexchange The progressive movement has lost recently one
of its pioneers. David Grabber was an American
anthropologist, anarchist activist, leading figure in the Occupy Wall Street movement, and is
sometimes credited with having coined the slogan "We are the 99%".
In the following short analysis, Grabber describes almost perfectly the nature of the
neoliberal centrism and how its carriers manipulate the masses. He also unveils the role of
those to the right, which in the US is played politically by the Republican Party.
As he points out: There's a symbiotic relationship between these centrists, who are just
sort of sneering elitists and these guys who are the scam artists, who pretend to be locals,
who pretend to be idiots, or pretend to be fascists. They're not even real fascists, they're
kind of phoney fascists. They are trying to set up a situation where those are the only two
viable political choices because they both feed off and complement one another.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/-9afwZON8dU
While in previous decades the capitalist class formed a solid front against the working class
through the complete domination of neoliberal doctrine, this "symbiotic relationship" described
by Grabber is declining rapidly.
As we already explained
, it was a matter of time to see a major crisis, comparable to that of 1929, inside the heart
of neoliberal capitalism. The big meltdown of 2007-08 in the United States fully unleashed the
centrifugal forces inside the Western capitalist system, and revealed a merciless
endo-capitalist war, which had been already brewing underground in previous years.
The two major events as a result of this war, were the rise of Donald Trump and the Brexit
vote. Both in the motherlands of neoliberalism. What we see now in the United States with
Trump, is a counter-attack by the part of the American capital against the globalist faction.
The faction that is primarily consisted by the
liberal plutocracy . Therefore, as the capitalist class splits, the capitalists
around Trump are now taking with them the most conservative part of the American society, as
they need electoral power. They have the money and their own media network. Their first big
victory was Trump in the US presidency and this explains why the liberal media attack him so
hard and so frequently.
Both Donald Trump and Boris Johnson represent the capitalist faction which senses an
existential threat from the globalized capital represented politically by the neoliberal
center. And as Grabber says, these are only phoney fascists.
Inside the capitalist civil war, both Trump and Johnson are essentially the tools of a tough
bargain between capitalists. Capitalists around Trump and Johnson are using these phoney
fascists to sabotage, for example some international treaties, like NAFTA, which are critical
for the complete domination of the globalized capital. They present these actions as a
"patriotic" stance to lure conservative voters who are angry and feel that globalization is the
key cause for the loss of jobs.
In the UK, Brexit is an additional powerful tool in Johnson's hands to bargain hard. As we
already pointed
out , if the globalist faction wants a smooth Brexit through a deal with the EU, it
will have to proceed in a permanent truce with the pro-Brexit faction. If it wants to postpone
and even reverse Brexit, it will have to give much more. That is, give a privileged position to
the pro-Brexit capitalists, in order for them not only to survive, but even gain significantly
from one more transformation of the global capitalist system. The transformation that will
occur after the next global financial meltdown. Well, it seems that this transformation is
taking place right now with the outburst of the COVID-19 global pandemic crisis. And everything
shows that the endo-capitalist war will become wilder. Capitalists around phony fascists like
Trump and Johnson are ready to make the game tougher if they see that they won't get some
guarantees that will secure them a place in the post-capitalist, neo-feudal landscape. And this
probably means that puppets like Trump and Johnson will be replaced by some real fascists.
We've seen something similar in the past. The level of ruthlessness of this capitalist war can
also be identified in the behavior of the US political class against the American people. It's
astonishing that, inside this terrible situation, where thousands die from the pandemic,
millions lose their jobs and live under extreme insecurity, no one is willing to offer
anything. Both Democrats and Republicans have turned the oncoming election into a political
bargain and they don't even try to hide it.
Inside this ruthless capitalist war, people have become almost irrelevant. What only matters
for the political puppets is to secure the interests of the capitalist faction they represent.
The
rampageous bulls of capitalism are fighting each other in an arena in which
democracy has now turned into dust under their violent clatters. It seems that the only hope
for the people, is the revival of the real Left through grassroots political parties, that will
become strong enough to challenge the neoliberal and the far-right monsters across the
globe.
SHARE LabelsBoris Johnson Brexit
capitalism COVID-19David Grabber Democrats
Donald Trump liberal plutocracyneoliberal centrism
Occupy Wall Street Republicans working class LABELS: BORIS JOHNSON BREXIT
CAPITALISM COVID-19DAVID GRABBER DEMOCRATS
DONALD TRUMP LIBERAL PLUTOCRACYNEOLIBERAL CENTRISM
OCCUPY WALL STREET REPUBLICANS WORKING CLASS SHARE C
The problem with American imperialism that like tiger it can't change its spots. In this
sense Trump vs Biden is false dilemma. "Bothe aare worse" as Stalin quipped on the other
occasion. Both still profess "Full Spectrum Dominance" doctrine at the expense of the standard of
living of the USA people (outside of top 10 or 20%)
The problem with Putin statement is that both candidates are marionette of more powerful
forces. Trump is a hostage of Izreal lobby, which in the USA are mostly consist of rabid
Russophobes (look art Schiff, Schumer and other members of this gang). Biden is a classic
neoliberal warmonger, much like Hillary was, who voted for Iraq war, contributed to color
revolution in Ukraine, and was instrumental in the conversion of Dems into the second war party.
So there is zero choice in the coming election unless you want to punish Trump for the betrayal
of his electorate, which probably is the oonly valid reason to vote for Biden in key states;
otherwise you san safely ignore the elections as youn; influence anythng. In a deep sense this is
a simply legitimization procedure for the role of the "Deep State", not so much real elections as
both cadidates were already vetted by neoliberal establishment
The key problem with voting for Bide is that this way you essentially legitimizing Obama
administration RussiaGate false flag operation. But as Putin said, chances for extending the
Start treaty might worse this self-betrayal.
Like much of the American public, the Russian public is no doubt weary of the prior couple
years of non-stop 'Russiagate' headlines and wild accusations out of Western press, which all
are now pretty much in complete agreement came to absolutely nothing. This is also why the
whole issue has been conspicuously dropped by the Biden campaign and as a talking point among
the Democrats, though in some corners there's been meek attempts to revive it, especially
related to claims of "expected" Kremlin interference in the impending presidential
election.
Apparently seeing in this an opportunity for some epic trolling, Russian President Vladimir
Putin in an interview with Rossiya 1 TV days ago said it was actually the Democratic Party and
the Communist Party which have most in common.
Putin was speaking in terms of historic Soviet communism in the recent interview (Wednesday)
detailed in Newsweek. "The Democratic Party is traditionally closer to the so-called liberal
values, closer to social democratic ideas," Putin began. "And it was from the social democratic
environment that the Communist Party evolved."
"After all, I was a member of the Soviet Communist Party for nearly 20 years" Putin added.
"I was a rank-and-file member, but it can be said that I believed in the party's ideas. I
still like many of these left-wing values. Equality and fraternity. What is bad about them?
In fact, they are akin to Christian values."
"Yes, they are difficult to implement, but they are very attractive, nevertheless. In
other words, this can be seen as an ideological basis for developing contacts with the
Democratic representative."
The Russian president also invoked that historically Russian communists in the Soviet era
would have been fully on board the Black Lives Matter movement and other civil rights related
causes. "So, this is something that can be seen, to a degree, as common values, if not a
unifying agent for us," the Russian president said. "People of my generation remember a time
when huge portraits of Angela Davis, a member of the U.S. Communist Party and an ardent fighter
for the rights of African Americans, were on view around the Soviet Union."
So there it is: Putin is saying his own personal ideological past could be a basis of
"shared values" with a Biden presidency, again, it what appears to be a sophisticated bit of
trolling that he knows Biden won't welcome one bit. Or let's call it a 'Russian endorsement
Putin style'. The Associated Press and others described it as Putin "hedging his bets",
however.
Another interesting part of the interview is where the Russian TV presenter asked Putin the
following question:
"The entire world is watching the final stage of the US presidential race. Much has
happened there, including things we could never imagine happening before but the one constant
in recent years is that your name is mentioned all the time," Zarubin said. "Moreover, during
the latest debates, which have provoked a public outcry, presidential candidate Biden called
candidate Trump 'Putin's puppy.'"
"Since they keep talking about you, I would like to ask a question which you probably will
not want to answer," the interviewer continued. "Nevertheless, here it is: Whose position in
this race, Trump's or Biden's, appeals to you more?"
And here's Putin's response:
"Everything that is happening in the United States is the result of the country's internal
political processes and problems," Putin said. "By the way, when anyone tries to humiliate or
insult the incumbent head of state, in this case in the context you have mentioned, this
actually enhances our prestige, because they are talking about our incredible influence and
power. In a way, it could be said that they are playing into our hands, as the saying
goes."
But on a more serious note Putin pointed out that contrary to the notion some level of
sympathy between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, much less the charge of "collusion",
it remains that US-Russia relations have reached a low-point in recent history under Trump. The
record bears this out.
Putin underscored that "the greatest number of various kinds of restrictions and sanctions
were introduced [against Russia] during the Trump presidency."
"Decisions on imposing new sanctions or expanding previous ones were made 46 times. The
incumbent's administration withdrew from the INF treaty. That was a very drastic step. After
2002, when the Bush administration withdrew from the ABM treaty, that was the second major
step. And I believe it is a big danger to international stability and security," Putin
explained.
"Now the US has announced the beginning of the procedure for withdrawing from the Open
Skies Treaty. We have good reason to be concerned about that, too. A number of our joint
projects, modest, but viable, have not been implemented – the business council project,
expert council, and so on," he concluded.
But then on Biden specifically Putin said that despite "rather sharp anti-Russian rhetoric"
from the Democratic nominee, it remains "Candidate Biden has said openly that he was ready to
extend the New START or to sign a new strategic offensive reductions treaty."
"This is already a very significant element of our potential future cooperation," Putin
added of a potential Biden presidency.
"Joe Biden's 'war economy' policies are a radical break with the status quo."
Telegraph
"Bidenomics is a heady brew. The Democrats' $7.9 trillion blast of extra spending is a step
beyond Roosevelt's New Deal. It mimics the Keynesian expansion of the Second World War and
consciously aims to run the economy at red-hot speeds of growth.
If enacted in full, it is large enough to lift the US economy out of the zero-rate
deflationary trap of the last decade and entirely reshape the social and financial
landscape.
The stimulus will be corralled inside the closed US economy by Joe Biden's protectionist
"Buy America" policies, his industrial strategy, and his carbon border tax (i.e. disguised
tariffs against China). This limits leakage.
It is a laboratory of sorts for a post-globalisation experiment in what used to be called
"reflation in one country" – before the free flow of goods and capital emasculated
sovereign governments.
"It's quite likely that, just as in World War II, when we push down on the economic
accelerator, we will find that we have been running on one cylinder up until no w," said the
Roosevelt Institute, now advisors to the
Biden campaign .
This is why
Moody's Analytics estimates that Bidenomics accompanied by a Democrat clean sweep of
Congress would lift American GDP by an extra 4.8pc, add an extra seven million jobs, and raise
per capita income by an extra $4,800 over the next four years , compared to a clean sweep by
Donald Trump. Economic growth would rocket to 7.7pc in 2022." Telegraph -------------
Evans-Pritchard, the author of this piece baldly declares that the Trump tax cut failed to
stimulate economic growth and that a clean sweep by the Democrats in November would lead to
massive GDP growth and a reduction in present economic inequalities in American society. I will
be very interested in your comments. pl
That's a fine read Col. Thank goodness that after 47 years as a politician, including 8
years as VP - during which TARP did what? - Biden finally has a plan to Tax and Spend that
beats all the Tax and Spend plans that went before this one.
Just what is this getting spent on - the same things Obama-Biden promised, "green" (the
color of money) energy, solar charging stations and 1.5 million energy efficient homes
(didn't the Housing bubble cause a little economic problem?), 'educaiton'! I wonder if that
includes teaching us all critical race theory? and "infrastructure". And here I thought
broken records were out of style.
Where's the money coming from? According to Oxfordeconomics, which the Guardian links to,
Biden's raising taxes, but it won't lower consumer spending:
".... we estimate an overall multiplier of 0.25 for the individual provisions in Biden's tax
package. So, for every dollar of tax increase, households would reduce their spending by 25
cents. As such, while the proposal would generate a substantial revenue inflow, we
don'tbelieve it would significantly constrain consumer spending."
So what is the decline in corporate spending if you raise corporate taxes? The economists
at Oxfordeconomics conveniently left that out, nor did they eplicitly tell you that a decade
of tax revenue will still leave you with 60 years of tax burden from Joe's spending.
"On the corporate tax front, the most significant revenue raisers are:•A 7ppt
increase in the statutory corporate tax rate to 28%, which would raise $1.3tn over
10years.•An increase in taxes on foreign earnings.•A 15% minimum tax on global book
income.•The elimination of several real estate investment tax preferences." (Oooh look,
Trump's screwed! Yeah! I wonder how all those REITs look with that?)
Another unasked question: Who is going to do all that economy stimulating work if there is
a national lockdown due to Covid?
"LaRouche's comments were prompted by an article published in the Telegraph on May 19 by
British intelligence stringer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, whose experience in orchestrating U.S.
impeachment drives for the British goes back to his attacks on President Bill Clinton.
Evans-Pritchard, on the eve of Trump's first trip abroad as President, is spreading the black
propaganda line that Trump might already be incapacitated, in much the same way as President
Richard Nixon was incapacitated by then-Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who "instructed
U.S. military officials to ignore any order from the Oval Office to use nuclear weapons."
Evans-Pritchard asserts that the key to overthrowing Trump is to pull Republican support
away from him, which he admits is still strong. But what happens next? He quotes Sir Jeremy
Greenstock, former British UN ambassador and now chairman at Gatehouse Advisory Partners:
"America can be very powerful if it decides to act hard. Xi Jinping and Putin will probably
wait and see whether Trump self-destructs." Evans-Pritchard then raises the question: How
will Trump behave "when the special prosecutor [Robert Mueller] starts to let rip with a
volley of subpoenas."
I like the idea of a Carbon Border Tax. Or at least the one proposed by the EU, as I have
not seen Biden's proposal. It has never made sense to me that we import from countries with
low environmental standards when our own manufacturers are handicapped.
But unless Biden can carry Democratic Senatorial challengers against GOP incumbents it
ain't gonna happen. It will be stalled in the Senate. There is no way McConnell will even
allow it on the Senate floor.
This thinking has been wrong, repeatedly so, for the last 10 years. The idea that there is
just one more pedal to push down to jumpstart the economy belies the truth that we have
experienced the most accommodative and expansive monetary policy on a global level in modern
times.
Aside from the lack of efficacy, which I may look to discuss at length later on, there is
another striking thing about this plan, and that is how it will be paid for. The reason is
not the traditional "where will the money come from" I know where it will come from, cheap US
debt, but it tells us two key things. The first is that the functional ideas of Modern
Monetary Theory (MMT) that you can basically just issue debt and have your central bank both
monetize it and keep the interest payments low and use that to fund largely unlimited
government spending have for the most part been endorsed by those on the left as a mechanism
to deliver on their grand plans. The second thing that is striking though is what they want
to spend the money on, which is military spending and infrastructure and not healthcare and a
green new deal. This calls into question what alignment there is on the cadres of the left or
the possibility that starting with infrastructure is a way to run cover to expand these
fantasy economics to social projects without reorienting the economy towards their
achievement.
Evans-Pritchard's talents are wasted on economic commentary. He writes well, but in the
breathless tones of a failed thriller writer. His entire worldview is based on the notion
that it is always two minutes to midnight. It's a shame that they put all of his stuff behind
a paywall.
Maybe if Biden's plan is approved we will finally see the inflation that Wall Street and
its media minions have been whining about for the past forty years.
I have no doubt that the collapsing pocket that is Conservative Inc will luxuriate back on
the familiar loser's ground of "fiscal responsibility."
Biden's plan, such as it is, simply marries the essence of Trump's nationalist policies
with Great Society spending levels. Like so much of his platform, it is designed to keep the
progressives on the plantation until Nov 3 and not one minute beyond.
Sure it will. The devil is in the details. When has any Democrat economic plan ever
produced intended results. First they have to confess what went wrong with their trillion
dollar "War on Poverty" that now requires another trillion to pretend to clean up that
grotesquely distorted mess.
Until they confess to their sins of the past, they are doomed to repeat them. How are they
going to remedy their decades of teacher union K1-2 fail turning out entire generations of
dysfunctional illiterates who are somehow going to be absorbed into this dynamite
economy.
They are sitting in the back room smoking dope and spinning tales. What I hear is wealth
confiscation and/or turning on the printing presses. Time for a good recap of Obama's initial
"Green Jobs Revolution" from his first term - who did those promise work out and why are we
having to undo the piles of excrement Biden First Term left behind.
I have a bad case of deja vu When in fact the Trump Tweaking was paying long term
dividends, until the deep state hijacked covid to destroy any possible Trump bragging rights.
Never forget Nancy Pelosi tearing up Trump's SOTU address and declaring they were all lies --
and then carrying out her covid porn agenda to make sure she was proven correct.
Remember the three generation rule - all revolutionary and planned economies always fail
by the third generation. Soviet Union, Margaret Thatcher's warning, Cuba, etc ......if all
the wealth in the world was redistributed, it would be back in similar hands three
generations later. Societies always stratify, even since the Sumerians.
America is unique primarily because of the mobility it offers between the strata by its
relatively free market system. Don't mess with it. Democrat's heavy handed planned utopia is
a nightmare.
I am no economist. However, I am not in debt. I am not wealthy, but I have all I need and
want. I've worked very hard during my life and enjoyed my jobs because they were suited to my
training and kislls. My retirement funds keep me comfortable. My two sons are doing well in
our current economy. That's, of course, a self-centered view of the situation.
But, with that in mind, I say this: "beware of Greeks bearing gifts." (I know Biden is not
Greek, but I hope you get my point.)
I am also remembering the Obama administration. I may receive only an Obama phone and an
EBT card.
Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is generally a very astute writer. However, on economics and
national fiscal policies and central banking he has bought into the Davos sophistry that
defies common sense for over a decade.
An example of this sophistry is this line from the passage in your post - "..lift the US
economy out of the zero-rate deflationary trap of the last decade...". Ask an average
American if they've seen any price deflation in their rents or house prices, their kid's
tuition, their health care premiums, their cost of pharmaceuticals, the cost of tacos at
their neighborhood taqueria, the cost of getting their shirt cleaned, over the past decade
and they'll laugh at you. The cost of living of average Americans have risen and that is the
real living experience. But of course if you're Ben Bernanke or Mario Draghi or Jerome Powell
or Ms. Lagarde then we are in a "deflationary trap" and they should print more and more money
that gets shipped first to their friends on Wall St. The Party of Davos as Jack called
it.
Under the government enforced lockdown, how many trillions has the US federal government
under the Trump administration borrowed from future generations in the first and now the
second stimulus waiting for approval? How many trillions did Jerome Powell print up and send
to his friends at Blackrock and Citadel?
GDP is a useless indicator IMO. Digging trenches and filling them up will raise GDP. A
very important indicator however is productivity growth. That has been lagging for many
years. Another are median household income & wealth, which has also been lagging. What
we've seen in the US is a dramatic increase in wealth inequality between the top 0.1% vs the
bottom 80% over the past 50 years and this curve continues to accelerate - second order
derivative!! The second is the level of systemic debt across all sectors - individuals,
corporate and government at all levels that has continuously risen over 50 years increasing
systemic leverage to a point larger than during the civil war and WW II. This has occurred
under both parties and the Trump presidency has actually increased it despite the rhetoric.
Compare the Balance of Trade relative to the soundbites.
A systematic restructuring of our economy away from financialization, away from bailouts
of the oligarchy, away from unprecedented market concentration, away from untrammeled credit
expansion to back previous credit losses and having a monetary authority with a singular
focus on sound money is what's necessary. But that's not gonna happen under either Trump or
Biden as it will gore the ox of the Party of Davos whose interests is what both sides
primarily cater to. More debt-fueled government spending always ends up as socialism for the
oligarchy which is exactly what we've had for decades. It is an economic truism that as
productivity of debt continually declines, economic productivity also declines. That's the
trap we are in!
Been very happy with my gold investments these past two years and will stick with them
thanks, Biden would supercharge them.
Longer term I am looking to have most of my money in Asia, Russian oil companies also seem
to like drilling for oil, rather than desperately trying to be anything else than producing
oil like BP and the rest. Demographics are dire for most of the West and the US is likely to
continue transitioning in to a Latin American style country. People have been well
conditioned in to not talking about such things but no point talking about the increasing
economic dysfunction without talking about the underlying cause. A massive increase in
immigration will lead to a surge in inequality, anemic economic growth, fiscal deficits and a
decline in gdp per capita.
Time to start think about investments the way a well to do Latin would.
Well, Biden has to get elected first, we'll see. Carbon taxes, hmmm - another way to
destroy the middle-class?
Something to think about is the European Central Bank, they are a meeting late this month
with "experts" to determine if they will go to a digital currency. The ECB might then decide
the "experts" are right and go full digital on Jan 1st, 2021. We might see a whole lot of
Euro money coming into the USA, hope so. However, the Federal Reserve has not been printing
any new bank notes so you'll have trouble finding crisp bills for Christmas gifts.
IMO, based on the debt current and future we are loading on the backs of our children, it
matters not a whit which of the paths are chosen. Both will end in destruction of said debt
by some method - because you can only load so much on horseback and still ride. As we stand
now, we are walking alongside a swaybacked packhorse already. Closing off the country, where
the only growth has been in the services sector for decades, makes sense in what
universe?
Raise taxes? They have only ever increased in my lifetime, my fathers and his. At what
point does the Boston Tea Party repeat? From where I sit, everything either party does is
only adding fuel to a coming conflagration, as nothing is actually paid for - a ledger entry
is aggregated and we march on. The piper will get paid, as he has the children...
1.socialism and keynesian economics as a viable theory dead dead right now....today and
politicians know it
2. central banks are trapped at zero bound interest rates with no way under heretofore main
stream economic theories to stimulate their respective economies
3. politicians are largely dumb as a bag of hammers with not a shred of understanding what to
do other than to listen to think tanks warmed over rehashed ideas that have not worked in the
past and won't now.
4. what biden is proposing is MMT with communist thomas piketty theory disguised as classical
keynesian nonsense being sold to a public almost as dumb as those doing the selling
5. in order to make this works they will have to institute guranteed basic income for the
umpteen millions of people who will NEVER work again under this policy of bullshit
6. and lastly to ensure NO ONE can escape this trap which will evolve into an UGLY neo
feudalism for 99% of the populace this team of genuinely EVIL people will have to CANCEL ALL
paper money FORCING everyone to have a bank account for using digital money THE ONLY money
that can exist if this comes to pass. banks loves this as it gives them a cut of all the
action
7.as a result taxes will be anything they want and YOU have no escape or recourse
whatsoever
8. say the wrong thing, think the wrong thing and your economic life under digital money will
be cancelled placing you into destitution and death
9. this is a recipe for slavery on a gigantic scale ensuring the 1/10 of 1% can rule without
disturbance forever
10 revolution will be the only option at that point and since the police and military will
continue to be paid by the state it will be bloody
On the other hand, if this scheme promises to bring back the Jimmy Carter 14% interest
rates on CD's for us retired folks, I say bring it on. Everyone else will just have to deal
with the economic rubble later on their own.
I just need another good 15 years or so myself. In other words, never believe old people
when it comes to managing the US economy- our goals are selfish and very short term. So like,
what's in this for meeeeeee?
Biden must have listened to AOC for this fiscal policy advice. Bring back chicken coops
and victory gardens, and turn in your scrap metal because we are WAR.
What in God's name is Biden having a Brit pushing his economic plan. We all know they
embellish everything which then falls apart into pieces. Yes, Fred I remember those +14%
interest rates I paid on my mortgage and still kick myself for not taking the 100k down
payment and putting it into a 14% 30 year CD and renting. But then we all have those
memories. Sure would not want my grandchildren paying those rates on a 500k mortgage as it
would kill the real estate business and this country.
Sleepy Joe will be ready for the assisted living center by year two and we would be stuck
with Checkbook Harris, UGH. Vote for the Bullcrapper that gets things done.
Ahem; This has been done before: After Hitler was elected in 1933; He slammed the borders
shut to money transfer, then started building the autobahn. It worked, Germany came out of
the slump. Of course, Hitler then moved on to building planes & tanks. Also, Modern
Monetary theory says you can run the printing presses & print money like mad, as long as
that paper is going into a real, working economy, it gets recycled. That does not describe
the current 'developed world' economy; the FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) has
eaten it's own tail. When all the other assets have jacked up half way to the moon, there
will be another gold rush (same as 1930s) & my shack in northern BC will shake with all
the helicopters flying around to work up new gold mines.
Candidate Donald Trump's 2016 programme was clear. Bring industry back home. Ditto the
troops. Ensure an adequate defence. Drain the swamp.
Looked good. I hadn't realised that his main achievement would be somewhat simpler. Stay
functioning in office in the face of the most dangerous series of attacks on an American
President that can have been seen since the early nineteenth century.
So clearly he's going to need another term in office to get on with all the things he
should have been able to get on with in the first.
Candidate Joe Biden was, I thought at first, stealing part of the Trump 2016 programme. Bring
industry back home. Turns out not - as far as I can see America will remain the most heavily
industrialised country going. But, as in my own country, much of the industry will still be
abroad. With the jobs.
As with my own country Biden's America will be environmentally virtuous. It'll hit some
good targets. It'll not use as much fossil fuel. Yesterday's heavy polluters - the coal mines
and steel mills - won't pollute any more.
Fake. Again as with my own country the dirty industries we still rely on will still be
roaring full steam ahead. Coal will still be mined. Steel will still be produced. But
elsewhere.
So Candidate Joe Biden will not be the man to put that part of the Trump 2016 programme
into action. He'll be the man who continues with the fake environmentalism we've already seen
so much of. Naturally, if the heavy industry is outsourced so is our pollution. Doesn't look
that clever a trick to me, even if it fools the eco-warriors.
Bill to stop vote-harvesting - ripe for fraud. Let's see where this independent stand
takes her into the bosom of her chosen political party. Can we trade Tulsi for Senator Lisa
Murkowski or Susan Collins?
You're right. Tulsi's bill is needed even though a lot of states already have election
laws against vote harvesting. North Carolina does, but it didn't stop the state GOP from
doing just that in a 2018 vote. This effort not only harvested absentee/mail in ballots, but
filled them out for their GOP candidates as well. Luckily, the state discovered the criminal
activity and threw the book at the culprits.
Further investigation revealed this may have been going on in North Carolina since at
least 2012. Yes, we must guard against his kind of voter fraud. Good on Tulsi for trying to
secure mail in/absentee voting. It helps negate some of the voter suppression methods like
closing voting places and limiting the number of voting machines in selected areas.
Tulsi is a force for good. She is also a die hard progressive with many positions
mirroring those espoused by Bernie and AOC. I hope, somehow, she can revive her political
future.
I see no political future for Tulsi in Hawaii. Of course, her father switched parties (Rep
to Dem) after getting elected to the state senate, so there is that precedent in the family.
But father Mike seems much more politically astute. Meanwhile her seat will be taken over by
progressive Kai Kahele, who in true Hawaii fashion got into the state senate by being
appointed to fill his father's seat when he died in office.
I just checked and found Tulsi has started a PAC so he's apparently not done with
politics. He remains a progressive and continues to support progressive candidates. I don't
see her fitting into the mainstream Democratic Party, but I certainly don't see her going
Republican. That would be a complete 180 from everything she professes to stand for. Perhaps
a third way.
"Her positions will evolve when she has entered the Republican Party"
Sir, that's why I hope Tulsi will not enter the Republican Party. Currently, the GOP party
representation in Congress is populated with cowards. No Republican there has the gut to say
the emperor has no cloth.
I hope she will become an independent candidate (with a small i).
@TTG Tulsi is only 39. She seems to be playing for time. She can afford to wait for the
current Pelosi/Chinton/Schumer/DCCC generation to age out and disappear. They seem hell bent
on "après nous le déluge". They're going to go all-in and will loose. Best to
stay far away from the "Jim Jones" election crew. The progressives hate her for not being
progressive. She has know-towed to them to keep from being banished because the Republican
party in Hawaii is like the Republican party in Portland, Oregon: vestigial. The "opposition"
to the mayor here, Ted Wheeler, the one who encourages the riots, is a hippie to his left.
Ugh... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Portland,_Oregon_mayoral_election
"... We need to dust off the Communist Control Act of 1954 and call it the Democratic Socialists Act of 2020, and then purge the government from the local level on up of radical elements who have taken their desire for social reforms and extended into violent protests or calls for the same. ..."
"... There are 20 million veterans in the US. Most of us are armed but were not particularly political, until now. I'm in Portland Oregon. The lunatics have been "rioting" downtown for three months but it looks more like cosplay to me so far. If the flair goes up they're going to find out there will be no shouting in the streets, they will simply be hunted like animals. Sedition is not funny. Or tolerated. ..."
"... I visited a Navy ship with an "integrated' crew. I was not impressed. I visited the sailors mess; by my take, there was a lesbians table, a straight girls table, a brown table, a gay table, etc. I did not detect any esprit de corps whatsoever. The whole atmosphere was toxic. ..."
The Democrats are now the Party of "Disintegration."
"Conservative commentator Ben Shapiro told " Life, Liberty & Levin " in an
interview airing Sunday that the ongoing unrest in the United States resembles "the French
Revolution in real time without the actual physical guillotines.""
"The fact is that what we have seen over the last several weeks is the full flowering of an
ideology of disintegrationism that has been running roughshod over our universities, through
our media, through our major cultural institutions for years," said Shapiro, editor emeritus of
The Daily Wire and author of the forthcoming book "How to Destroy America in Three Easy
Steps."
' "The idea [of disintegrationism is] that America has never had any ties that bind us and
that American history is a story of one group clubbing another group over the head, [and that]
America's philosophy is really just sort of a pasteboard mask ... covering up for hierarchies
of brutal power dynamics, and that our culture of rights is really a lie," Shapiro told host
Mark Levin." FN
-----------
Shapiro and Levin are two of my favorite talking heads. They both understand clearly that
the Jacobin Marxist wing of the Democratic Party with its BLM and Antifa allies are intent on
destroying and obliterating the United States of America. They intend to replace the
constitution with a different document, to replace the flag, the anthem and to erase our
history in a replication of the Khmer-Rouge's murderous enactment of the philosophy of the
"Year Zero."
The machine Democrats like Pelosi, Schumer,Warner, Kaine, Cuomo, etc., are rapidly losing
control of their party just as the Girondists lost control of the National Assembly as history
moved them along on the way to their ride in the tumbrils . AOC says openly that her comrades
should vote for Biden however ridiculous and ideologically inappropriate he is. Joe should
listen for the rumble of the wooden wheels.
But! Do not despair! I doubt that the Armed Forces and the Deplorables would accept the
seizure of power by the Jacobin Marxists. There may be generals and admirals who would be
tempted to accept such a government but the troops ...
The troops? Combat arms totally with the conservatives/deplorables. The rest? The new PC
military is a very mixed bag from what I can tell. Just bringing up that distinction before
someone quotes this or that study or anecdote that counters your assertion as to "the
military's" political leanings.
On a related note, the loss of RBG is a blow to the Jacobins because she was one of them
in their minds. She had openly stated that she preferred the constitution of South Africa,
with all of its social justice/equality gobbedlyguk, to the US Constitution. They want more
like her, of course; an ally in tearing up the law of land....may she Rest In Peace, etc,
etc, etc.
The combat arms are the only ones who count. The "woke" military? If by that you mean the
generals, they are subject to a "vote" by the men and more junior officers. The troops are
pretty much come for the Deplorables.
We need to dust off the Communist Control Act of 1954 and call it the Democratic
Socialists Act of 2020, and then purge the government from the local level on up of radical
elements who have taken their desire for social reforms and extended into violent protests or
calls for the same.
There's a "culture" war going on with the Jacobin Marxists as you label them intent on
erasing our history and the foundational precepts that built this country.
Then there is another war going on between the Party of Davos and the Deplorables of both
the "right" and "left" who have been losing at an increasing pace over the past 40 years. In
this war the "machine" politicians of both parties as well as Trump are aligned in a
symbiotic relationship with the Party of Davos who for all intents and purposes control all
levers of power. This pandemic lockdown epitomizes this war when the wealth gains of the Top
0.1% are compared to the Bottom 90%. The direct transfer of wealth from the Fed exemplifies
it perfectly.
Do you see these two wars intersecting? Or is the culture war designed to distract from
the war of oligarchic total power that the Deplorables having been losing for decades?
This Netflix documentary on Big Tech crystallizes what many have suspected.
You're still missing the shot, Sir. Shapiro is a gatekeeper:
"Ultimately, what a guy like Ben Shapiro tries to do is distract people from the real
issues, by focusing their attention on the trivial. He starts from the premise that there is
a real battle between the Left and some ideological alternative. That battle was over long
before anyone reading this was born. The Right in America, for more than half a century, has
simply been a modifier, a restraint, on the American Left. Shapiro's job is to make sure
otherwise sensible people never notice this. Otherwise, there will be a revolt."
There are 20 million veterans in the US. Most of us are armed but were not particularly
political, until now. I'm in Portland Oregon. The lunatics have been "rioting" downtown for
three months but it looks more like cosplay to me so far. If the flair goes up they're going
to find out there will be no shouting in the streets, they will simply be hunted like
animals. Sedition is not funny. Or tolerated.
I think that the root cause is that the norms of behavior have eroded to the point that
many people seem to think that they can say or do anything. At some point the line will be
crossed and they reaction will be far more than the spanking that they should have gotten
decades ago.
Decades ago when GW1 went down, my enlistment had just expired. I remember thinking:
please don't call me back up, I just got out and I just want to go to college. Now it's more
like pretty please...
I visited a Navy ship with an "integrated' crew. I was not impressed. I visited the
sailors mess; by my take, there was a lesbians table, a straight girls table, a brown table,
a gay table, etc. I did not detect any esprit de corps whatsoever. The whole atmosphere was
toxic.
Furthermore "fraternization" throughout the services (in Australia) is an open secret.
it's not good for morale.
My take on the PC military is that the minorities will "get with the program" or be
removed if units are stressed. - except perhaps with the Airforce, they are strange cats.
My partisan Democrat husband scoffs at the possibility that a radical agenda will be
implemented in a Biden administration in spite of EXISTING leftist efforts that are
eliminating bail, forgoing criminal prosecutions, releasing violent criminals from jails, and
"re-imagining" policing -- all of which have predictably resulted in spikes in crime. What
more has to happen to convince people like my husband, who are essentially whistling past the
graveyard, that the left is advocating ruinous policies?
In just a few months' time, Democrats allowed huge amounts of property, business and
personal damage to take place before they stopped making excuses for the destruction,
violence, and looting that's occurred before our very eyes. The fact that they even
contemplated for a moment -- and waited until polling told them otherwise -- that all of this
chaos was an acceptable way to govern should (but apparently doesn't) strike fear in
all reasonable people. No wonder gun sales are skyrocketing. I used to think those on the
Right who warned of the possibility of a new civil war were alarmist, but they were correct
in their concern. The Left has gone berserk, obviously willing to forsake civil society and
invite ruin in its quest for power.
I've seen Shapiro on Levin's show, resulting in brilliant discussion. Here's an excellent
short video of Ben on capitalism vs. socialism that went viral a while ago:
vegetius is wrong because he is looking through the rear view mirror not the
windshield. Yes the left has been ascendant since WW2 and has ideologically and economically run out of
gas. Socialism and keynesian economics are DOA. they have exhausted themselves and are
imploding everywhere as i write this.
1. central banks has reached the zero boundary for interest rates and are trapped with
nothing left to stimulate their respective economies. they are out of ammo with no socialist
or keynesian solution. oh, MMT is so much bullshit and will be shortlived when its tried as
it goes against all human nature and how people in concert and individually act in the real
world.
2. politically the western politicians have made future monetary promises their economies can
no longer cash and no central bank trickery can make it workable.
The game is over for the socialsim ergo the hysteria and violence on the left as they or
some of them anyway in subliminal memory grasp what they have believed all their lives is
proving to be so much fools gold.
in a generation or less all the flotsam and jetsam we see parading in hollywood, on the
media and in the streets and political aisles will be gone, self cancelling... because they
go against nature itself, darwin will prove to a merciless exterminator of the unfit.
Is the US really a land
teeming with 'white supremacists', or are malicious forces working to crowbar the racial divide
for their own ulterior motives? Whatever the case, America needs to get a handle on the issue,
and fast.
Watching the video of George Floyd dying on the street under the knee of Derek Chauvin, a
white police officer, forced many people to ask themselves: is this yet another case of police
brutality that has become so prevalent on the streets of America, or is it symptomatic of
something even worse? Without any debate, the mainstream media had a ready-made answer for mass
consumption: America is racist to the core and deserves whatever it gets. It was a simplistic,
knee-jerk response at a time when America was already suffering under a lockdown due to a
pandemic.
Before continuing, it is necessary to ask: does America really suffer from 'systemic
racism', also known as institutional racism? As a white American who grew up in a multiethnic
neighborhood and was later employed at several racially diverse workplaces, I would have to
disagree. While the proverbial 'melting pot' still has some cooking to do, relations between
black and white people have been stable for many years.
While the nation will never remove the scar of slavery, the creation of a welfare state,
together with numerous government programs such as Affirmative Action, was designed to end the
discrimination of minorities. And as every American will say, the United States is a 'nation of
immigrants', an idea reinforced by the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965,
for example, which opened the door to millions of people of non-European descent. Those sorts
of initiatives indicate that Americans are not the hooded pack of white supremacists that many
now say they are. This does not mean, of course, that the scourge of racism has been stamped
out; there is no shortage of racists and bigots in the US, but to call the problem 'systemic'
seems overblown.
At the same time, however, it cannot be denied that we are now living in radical 'woke'
times, an entirely new animal. Thus, instead of responding to the outbreaks of violence in the
wake of police killings with a unifying message of calm and civility, many politicians, in an
effort to appease the angry social justice warriors that keep them in office, are stoking the
fires of racial dissent with their rhetoric. You don't have to read between the lines to
understand their message – just listen to Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee for the
vice presidency.
" Everyone beware, " Harris remarked in a recent interview with Stephen
Colbert. " They [the protesters] are not going to stop before election day in November, and
they're not going to stop after election day They're not going to let up, and they should not,
and we should not. "
It would be difficult to cite a more irresponsible comment from any individual, and
especially one who has a high chance of becoming – considering Joe Biden's advanced age
– the first female president of the United States. This strange new willingness for
Democratic leaders to court the mob reared its ugly head again this week, when Portland Mayor
Ted Wheeler banned police from using tear gas to quell riots that have plagued the city for
more than three months. Mind you, this is the very same mayor who was forced to vacate his
condominium last week after rioters set fire to the building.
Meanwhile, behind the scenes, a number of influential individuals have declared their
support for Black Lives Matter and Antifa. Few would be surprised to know that the financier
George Soros, for example, donated almost a quarter of a billion dollars to several racial
justice groups, including BLM. He was motivated by " systemic discrimination against blacks
that can be traced back to slavery. "
On the other end of the spectrum, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, owned by the global Unilever
Company, announced
it was launching a podcast that prompts listeners to " dismantle systemic racism " and
white supremacy. Shouldn't Americans be entitled to a national conversation on the question of
'systemic racism' first, before an ice cream company (ice cream!) practically declares it a
full-blown fascist regime? After all, the 'race problem' could be a symptom of the deplorable
state of the police forces, which are, arguably, both overworked and undertrained to handle
their assigned tasks. The theory at least deserves much greater attention, but that would
deprive the left of an opportunity to appear holier-than-thou in the most consequential
presidential election in many decades.
In any case, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that if these protest groups
– which, incidentally, have a large number of misguided white
youths among their ranks – believe they can act with impunity, while also receiving
massive injections of cash and ideological support, things are going to spiral out of control
real fast.
Just this week, BLM protesters descended upon my hometown of Pittsburgh, where they harassed
a group of diners enjoying the afternoon on a café patio. One of the female activists
somehow thought it would be a great idea to gulp down one of the beverages on a table where an
elderly couple was seated. Earlier, across the country in Portland, Oregon, BLM showed up in
the middle of the night to inform 'privileged' suburban residents – not all of them
white, by the way – that they were living on "occupied" land. If BLM really wants
sympathy for its cause, those methods are certainly not the way to get it. In fact, they could
trigger an ugly backlash, igniting the very racism that the group declares itself to be
fighting in the first place.
On that note, more white citizens are coming around to the conclusion that they are the ones
being subjected to a 'reverse' form of racism – or, at the very least, are not permitted
to defend themselves from physical harm. That appeared to be the lesson for many after Mark and
Patricia McCloskey, two lawyers from an upscale neighborhood in St. Louis,
brandished firearms after protesters smashed through a gate and trespassed onto their
property. Guess who was charged with a crime? Not the protesters. St. Louis Circuit Attorney
Kim Gardner, who received funds for her campaign from none other than Mr. Soros, filed a felony
count against the McCloskeys for unlawful use of a weapon.
Overnight, it appears that Americans have awakened to a nightmare world turned upside down,
where all of the old rules of law and order have been thrown out the window. It's a place where
political leaders no longer allow the police to perform their duties; citizens are condemned as
criminals for protecting themselves, and all the while, "fiery yet mostly peaceful protests"
are permitted to rage. Before the situation hits the point of no return, America really needs
to have a calm discussion about 'systemic racism' to determine if it even exists in the first
place. In the meantime, find a way to maintain law and order on the streets and, most
importantly, trust the police; the majority are not bad apples. America's future peace and
prosperity depends on it.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
Will we ever return to a time when USSID 18 was adhered to by NSA? Sadly, our politicians or those who quest for power and stroke
won't let U.S. go back to that time of protections for all Americans.
9th Circuit Court of Appeals found the activity regarding NSA and its metadata collections, illegal.
With "first after the post" election rules no third party can succeed.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... "major new corporate-free political party in America." ..."
"... "There is only one choice in this election, and that is the consolidation of oligarchic power under Donald Trump, or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden," ..."
"... "The oligarchs with Trump or Biden will win again, and we will lose." ..."
"... Only one thing matters to the oligarchs, it is not democracy, it is not truth, it is not the consent of the governed, it is not income inequality, it is not the surveillance state, it is not endless war it is the primacy of corporate power, which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class and the working poor in misery. ..."
"... We have reverted to aristocracy; it is now a corporate aristocracy. ..."
"... "It is health insurance companies, it is big pharmaceutical companies, it is big oil, it is food companies and of course, it is the military industrial complex," ..."
"... "we are in a fight for our lives and for future generations," ..."
"... "We don't believe in the lies and the bribes and the contentment in a lousy peace," ..."
"... "How can we have peace in moments like this, when over 90 million of our sisters and brothers are either uninsured or underinsured?" ..."
"... "How can we have peace when on the streets of America right now, black lives have been reaching out, calling out the racism and the white supremacy and the bigotry of a system that was created for black lives to languish." ..."
"... How can we have peace when you got a Congress that goes on recess while millions of people are facing evictions from their homes? ..."
"... "We need a third or fourth entity to step in. The lesser of two evils is still evil," ..."
"... "We are living in a moment of massive imperial meltdown, spiritual breakdown, and we need prophetic fight-back," ..."
Fed up with decades of two-party rule, hundreds of thousands of Americans tuned in for the People's Convention, where they
voted to form a new political alternative unbeholden to corporate power or the military-industrial complex.
The event drew
more
than 400,000 viewers
to its livestream on Sunday, organizers said. It continued to trend on Twitter through more than 5
hours of speeches that culminated in a vote to create a "major new corporate-free
political party in America."
Among the speakers at the
convention were several disgruntled Democrats, from Sen. Bernie Sanders's 2020 national co-chair Nina Turner to a candidate in
this year's primaries, Marianne Williamson. The roster of speakers also included former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura,
comedian Jimmy Dore, and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Chris Hedges, who summed up the spirit of the convention in a fiery
address.
"There is only one choice in this election, and that is the consolidation of oligarchic
power under Donald Trump, or the consolidation of oligarchic power under Joe Biden,"
said Hedges, who also hosts RT's '
On
Contact
.'
"The oligarchs with Trump or Biden will win again, and we will lose."
Only one thing matters to the oligarchs, it is not democracy, it is not truth, it is
not the consent of the governed, it is not income inequality, it is not the surveillance state, it is not endless war it
is the primacy of corporate power, which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class and the working
poor in misery.
The People's Convention
was held on the heels of the Republican and Democratic national conventions earlier this month, which event organizers said
"erased
the needs of poor and working people in a time of mounting national crisis."
It ended with a vote to create the People's
Party in 2021, in which some 99 percent of its 400,000 viewers took part.
Williamson, who made an
unsuccessful bid for Democratic nominee in the 2020 race, slammed an economic system that for decades has stranded
"millions
of people without even a life vest,"
concentrating massive amounts of wealth upward and leaving the American middle
class
"completely devastated."
We have reverted to aristocracy; it is now a corporate aristocracy.
"It is health insurance companies, it is big pharmaceutical companies, it is big oil, it
is food companies and of course, it is the military industrial complex,"
she said.
A former Ohio state
senator and a senior figure in the Sanders campaign, Turner told the convention that
"we
are in a fight for our lives and for future generations,"
adding
"We don't believe
in the lies and the bribes and the contentment in a lousy peace,"
quoting from a 1938 poem by Langston Hughs.
"How can we have peace in moments like this, when over 90 million of our sisters and
brothers are either uninsured or underinsured?"
Turner asked.
"How can we have
peace when on the streets of America right now, black lives have been reaching out, calling out the racism and the white
supremacy and the bigotry of a system that was created for black lives to languish."
How can we have peace when you got a Congress that goes on recess while millions of
people are facing evictions from their homes?
"We need a third or fourth entity to step in. The lesser of two evils is still evil,"
said
Ventura, who was elected Minnesota governor on a third-party ticket in 1998 and has since been involved with the Libertarian
and Green parties. Ventura has also hosted RT's '
Off
the Grid
' (ending in 2015) and '
The
World According to Jesse
.'
Harvard professor and
social critic Dr. Cornel West also addressed the event, calling to
"transform the
American empire into a more democratic space,"
while dubbing the two major parties the
"neo-fascist"
and
"neo-liberal"
wings
of the
"ruling class."
"We are living in a moment of massive imperial meltdown, spiritual breakdown, and we
need prophetic fight-back,"
West said, arguing the new party would provide just that.
The Movement for a
People's Party, the organization behind the project, now says it is working to establish local branches around the US, which
will
"form the building blocks of state parties"
and work through the long and
often arduous process of securing ballot access. The group has set a lofty goal for the new anti-corporate outfit, hoping it
will be
"poised to sweep Congress and the White House"
by the next election cycle
in 2024.
Think your friends would be
interested? Share this story!
Sinalco
16 hours ago
Sadly, it's the same all over the world - the corporations have bought all politicians... Governments & Politicians no
longer work for us; they work for the highest bidder...
ratfink222 Sinalco
3 hours ago
In the USA it is even worse, CEOs give themselves multimillion dollars raises and bonuses for screwing up and screwing
Americans. Their pay is at least 10,000 times higher than employees. They act like they are laying golden bricks but
they are robbing everybody.
GottaBeMe
venze chern
5 hours ago
This one will be a grassroots organization and has pledged to never accept corporate donations. They are planning to get
online funding from individuals as did Bernie Sanders. It can be done. When they have enough momentum, they will work to
eliminate corporate money from politics. You should watch their convention. I saw all but the first 45 minutes. It was
inspiring.
Juan_More
15 hours ago
There are already other parties running in the election it is just that these also ran parties can't get any traction
against the two main parties. Part of the reason that RT got trouble last time is that they gave airtime to these also
ran parties. Ross Perot made a good try at it but he failed. These also ran parties have to start winning elections at
lower levels and building momentum. The other would be to get a high profile candidate with name recognition like Jesse
Ventura or Oprah
GottaBeMe
Juan_More
5 hours ago
Certainly the game is rigged against alternative parties.
They are not allowed to participate in debates, the media
tries to ignore them, election rules are designed to make it nearly impossible to get on a state ballot. (This is why I
vote 3rd party in the absence of a decent D or R candidate: a threshold of votes can provide a bit of financial relief
and if enough, could mandate ballot access.) I truly hope the People's Party succeeds. I intend to support it as much as
I can.
Alan Ditmore
Juan_More
5 hours ago
No. ONLY ONE viable strategy and that is to get 1000 MAYORS before running any higher, for which you need a municipal
platform.
houses
13 hours ago
Workers' parties are the only alternative to corporate parties.
The British Labour Party was just that, but it was infiltrated by tory fifth columnists and turned into
tory lite, thus depriving the electrorate of any meaningfull choice.
Corbyn is real Labour, and was voted
leader by a landslide of the national membership, but the Blairites in the PLP simply undermined
everything he did, contradicted everything he said, supported tory fake news and lies, and even
campaigned openly against him at the general election. The fact is the corporate fascists will not ALLOW
any opposition to their kleptocratic establishment.
After ample media jaw-jawing over whether the Democratic presidential nominee would loudly
and proudly repudiate some of the present violent protesting in America's streets, Joe Biden
(if briefly) denounced the hard Left on Monday. "Rioting is not protesting. Looting is not
protesting. Setting fires is not protesting," the former vice president said in Pittsburgh, in
a rare day trip from Delaware; he has rarely traveled since the dawn of COVID-19 in the United
States. "None of this is protesting -- it's lawlessness, plain and simple. And those who do it,
should be prosecuted."
"Violence will not bring change," Biden continued. "It will only bring destruction. It's
wrong in every way. It divides, instead of unites. It destroys businesses -- only hurts the
working families that serve the community. It makes things worse across the board, not better."
And, in the signature line of the speech, Joe Biden summed up a lifetime of political appeal:
"You know me. You know my heart. You know my story. Ask yourself, do I look like a radical
socialist with a soft spot for rioters?"
It was effective. Still, Biden's address Monday hardly tied up all loose ends.
After his speech, fresh polling implied additional trouble for his campaign.
Emerson College , respected in the field, released research that found President Trump down
only two percent in the contest, with a double digit performance with African-Americans and
support among Hispanics nearing forty percent, both surprising. It's one poll, but it's
startling stuff. Since Biden declared his candidacy in 2019, his duel with Donald Trump has
been one-sided.
Despite press incentives to couch the race as anybody's game, Trump vs. Biden so far had had
all the makings of a rout, and without a traditional campaign, even a boring one at that (a
shocking statement on anything that involved Donald Trump). From the president's termination of
internal pollsters last year that showed him to the ex-veep losing badly, to Biden's astonishing,
intimidating comeback in the primary to the Democratic nominee's record of utter political
dominance since crisis opened up in America, it had not been a pretty picture for the White
House.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.406.0_en.html#goog_1525384837 00:06 / 00:59
00:00 Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker,
Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
But that's now plainly shifted. Some partisans in early summer made the case that
relative administration restraint on violent protests in America's cities (including the
capital of Washington, D.C.) would lay bare the nature of certain left-wing tactics.
Politically, at least, it's beginning to look prescient. While overdone analogies to the mayhem
of 1968 abound -- the Nixon-Humphrey race occurred in a time closer to World War I than the
current year -- it's clear, now, that some devotees of the Democrats are, in fact, undermining
the cause.
Americans are fleeing the
city. Bad news for the donkey: some might argue that's a tacit rejection of liberal
politics. And it's certainly a reality Trump campaign manager Bill Stepien is licking his chops
to exploit. Urban America is almost monolithically controlled by the Democratic Party. And, in
a stunning reversal after decades of urban triumph, the city has become a political albatross.
Biden notoriously made his bones in his early political life as a sensitive ear on the
anxieties, reasonable or not, of white suburbanites. Speculation about senility aside, he would
seem to know what's up.
That's why Biden made a tactical error, in later veering off-message -- after the initial
upbraiding of his own side. He repudiated violence, but then engaged in both-siderism. He
implied the canard that anti-fascist chaos has been met with equal, odious might by the far
Right. It hasn't. The most recent, known victim of political violence was a
Trump-supporting man in Portland, Oregon. Whatever you think of his politics, he was
apparently essentially executed in the streets of a major American city.
Images of burned-out ruins in Kenosha, Wisconsin permeate cyberspace. Add in, for instance,
insane reports (if true) of laser attacks on law enforcement, and it's not hard to see how this
gets dicey in a hurry for the Democrats. The party's monofocus on police killings of
African-Americans, an essential issue, falls flat with the public when there is a failure to
also address the larger toxic brew that is the country's problems right now. So, true to form,
Biden strayed further from his initial path by talking, at bizarre length, about Russian
President Vladimir Putin and the dubious
Russian bounties story, where plenty of regional experts say the dust is far from settled.
"Donald Trump is determined to instill fear in America," Biden closed. "That's what his entire
campaign for the presidency has come down to: fear."
The former vice president then declined to take questions, failing to allay fears that he
only speaks when he absolutely has to.
Senator Harris did not say "riots'. To claim that she did is to promote a clear falsehood.
She said "protests". No American should have a problem with protests.
I don't really like either candidate and was all set to write in another name as a protest
(Andrew Basevich). Here is what changed my mind:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020... Click on the embedded video. This attack was folllowed up
by another vicious attack on a senior a couple of days later:
https://cwbchicago.com/2020...
I am not expecting any miracles in a second Trump term but I am one of many voters who
think Biden is a mere placeholder for the more radical Harris.
Trump's best hope for re-election are a) more examples of urban unrest/local politicians
failing to keep order and b) Biden continuing to show he is losing his marbles, particularly
in a debate. He will probably get both, but he would help himself out by hesitating just a
bit every time he feels like shooting off his mouth, which turns of a lot of people,
particularly wavering voters.
T he analysis behind the polls conducted is lacking any sort of empirical anchor and is
otherwise hopelessly biased. That's why they shared it with a reporters: both serve the same
clients, who are not interested in objective analysis, only in winning the election, no matter
what "
Kolanovic then asks what caused this initial collapse and then full recovery of Trump's
odds. His response: "we believe it is largely due to two effects: 1) the impact of the degree
of violence in protests on public opinion and voting patterns and 2) a bias in polls due to
Trump voters being more likely to decline or mislead polls", both factors we discussed
extensively over the past week ( here
and
here ).
Then, after laying out the dynamics our readers are already familiar with, Kolanovic says
that " momentum related to the Wasow effect will continue in favor of Trump, unless Democrats
pivot away from their stance regarding demonstrations. This may not be easy however, given that
top Democrats have called for daily demonstrations (e.g. Kamala Harris) and rallied their base
around the theme of defunding police and would need to effectively adopt Trump's policy after 3
months as a reaction to polls. Some party officials already rationalized or promoted the
behavior."
Then there is the question of turnout: here Kolanovic makes a critical point saying that "
turnout strongly depends on the left wing of the party ('Bernie bros', Marxist elements, etc.),
which would be alienated by such a shift" [toward demonstrations].
Of course, the fading impact of Covid will also have an impact on the election: "Another
important driver in determining both the market direction and election outcome is the
progression of COVID-19. Figure 2 shows that daily US COVID-19 cases also correlate with Trump
betting odds. New COVID-19 cases rate has been declining by about ~20,000 cases/day per month.
Given that there are no very large states that have yet to see widespread outbreaks that can
significantly boost new cases, this will likely set the pandemic on course to subside in time
for the election. Declining cases may further provide a boost to Trump's election odds.
Finally, Kolanovic notes that the last important driver of election odds will be the outcome
of presidential debates: "Currently, top Democrats are calling for the historically
unprecedented action of cancelling debates. Cancelling debates would likely not bode well for
Biden, as recent polls suggest that 61% of voters think Biden should address the question of
dementia publicly, and 52% are either not sure or think that Biden has the condition."
And while the JPM strategist concedes that "a lot can happen in the next ~60 days to change
the odds" he currently believes "that momentum in favor of Trump will continue, while the most
investors are still positioned for a Biden win. Implications could significant for the
performance of factors, sectors, COVID-19 winners/losers, as well as ESG. "
* * *
With just over two months left, it remains to be seen if Trump's momentum persists but what
we found unquestionably hilarious is that shortly after Kolanovic's warning was publicized,
none other than Nate Silver who predicted the 2016 would be won by Hillary (see
here and here ),
though granted
with some caveats and far
less vocally than his even more clueless peers who had all
predicted a Hillary landslide , had a meltdown on twitter, slamming the two core arguments
behind Kolanovic's opinion, proceeding directly to ad hominem attacks, calling Marko a "
financebro " to wit:
"both of these propositions are almost entirely lacking in evidence, to the point where
they're more superstitious than empirical, but are an interesting window into the mindset of
techbros and financebros who are buying up Trump shares on prediction markets."
The meltdown continued for several more tweets, and culminated with the following scathing
attack: " A chart like this is nonsense, and the analysis behind it is lacking any sort of
empirical anchor and is otherwise hopelessly confused. It's amazing that they shared it with a
reporter because they thought it would make them look smart."
Nate, chill out "pollbro" and stop pretending like there is some profound, abstruse and
complex science involved here - there isn't - and that only certified grand druids of polling
have a right to opine on the future. If anything, you are the one who should shut up, instead
of trying to "look smart" by bashing Kolanovic, who at least lays out his logic and -
ultimately - his clients will decide if he is right or wrong with their wallet. It's called
skin in the game: if Marko is right, he will be rewarded, if he is wrong he may lose his job.
You, on the other hand, were hopelessly wrong in 2016 and yet here you are pretending you have
some arcane "technical and domain expertise."
What really prompted Silver's implosion? It appears that despite his catastrophic track
record from 2016, Nate still believes he somehow holds a monopoly on forecasting and
"analyzing" polls and thus Kolanovic's upstaging of Silver was taken especially personally,
even though we are shocked that people still care and listen to what Silver has to say.
Incidentally, Nate, it wasn't you but this website that explained for much of
2016...
...
why the polling results in 2016 were meaningless and why people should not rely on what they
predicted. We were right, you were wrong.
Oh and for those who care or keep record of such things, Silver's latest take - perhaps
having learned a thin gor two from the 2016 fiasco - is that " Biden is slightly favored to win
the election ."
So what does happen next? Well, the good news is that in just a few weeks we will know who
is right and wrong. If Trump's polling suddenly reverses and Biden steamrolls the president no
Nov 3, well then it won't be the first time that a "
once in a decade" opportunity to bet on a reversal has gone wrong. On the other hand, we
sincerely hope that if Trump is victorious on Nov 3 that Nate Silver finally finds a job that
he is good at.
We're building a major new progressive populist party in America. A party that is
completely free of corporate and billionaire money. Because Wall Street has two major
parties and working people have none.
A large majority of Americans want a major new party, support progressive policies,
and want money out of politics. With more than sixty thousand members and supporters like
Nina Turner, Jimmy Dore, and Cornel West the Movement for a People's Party is making it
happen.
<> <> <> <> <>
The Democratic Party wants to lose to Trump. F*ck 'em. Make your vote count! Vote
People's Party.
" the idea of a republic was developed in order to constrain the dangerous political power
of the wealthy in a society "
[Well, no. Our constitutional republic was developed to institutionalize the political power
of economic elites in our society. Consider the US Senate, the electoral college and the
original limitations on suffrage. The US Senate has been modestly improved since senators began
to be elected by the people in 1914. Suffrage has expanded considerably. But during those
intervening years the elites had plenty time to program public opinion via both media and
pedagogy much as the Prussians had done to develop their own military-industrial republic.
August 27, 2020 2:40 pm
@ Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) writes: "Our constitutional
republic was developed to institutionalize the political power of economic elites in our
society."
This is the standard historical interpretation of the "left." There is a simple
historical test that can, and should, be applied. But the test is not applied, because it
shows the standard "left" interpretation is wrong.
The test: compare the late 18th century elites of USA with the late 18th century elites
of England and Great Britain. Where today are the fabulously wealthy families of the
descendants of Franklin, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, etc.? There are
none, so far as I know. Look then in contrast at the continued wealth, privilege, and rank
in Britain of the families of Windsor, Grosvenor, Schroder, Barclay, Cavendish, Somerset,
Seymour, and others, all of which go back three centuries or more. Either the attempt to
"institutionalize the political power of economic elites" failed miserably, or the
interpretation is WRONG.
The failure to apply this test, and acknowledge the meaning of its results, indicates to
me that the "left" is as intellectually atrophied and dishonest as is the conservatives and
libertarians.
A number of years ago, my interlocutors would try to argue that their argument was
proven by Charles Beard. So, I went and read Beard. Not just his 1913 #Economic
Interpretation of the Constitution# but also, crucially, his 1915 #Economic Origins of
Jeffersonian Democracy# and his 1922 #The economic basis of politics#. Turns out that my
interlocutors were wrong, and Beard actually argued, by 1922, that Hamilton and Madison's
analysis of political economy (political factions arise from economic interests) was more
accurate and more useful than the political economy of Marx or Lenin.
The dismissal of Machiavelli for alleged flaws of personal characters seems to be a
standard attack of people who are more interested in identity politics than in advancing
the interests of the working class. This preferred approach, along with the intellectual
dishonesty and stultification mentioned above, are, I believe, the major reasons why the
"left" has had its ass kicked repeatedly by the conservatives and libertarians the past
four decades, allowing the latter two to dominate national economic policy making for far
too long.
"Industrial Revolution facilitated the procurement of the electorate at market prices"
I'm not entirely sure what your point is here, but I think the real dynamic to look at was
the expansion of the franchise to the working class in Europe in the early 1900s, which was
the political price the European oligarchs were evidently willing to pay to get the mass
conscription required for the slaughters of the 1910s thorough 1940s.
Which also brings up this point: the failure to understand what the creation of the
American republic was really all about leaves one vulnerable to disastrous consequences.
For example, if a proper understanding of the USA as a republic (as reflected in Sumner's
1866 speech) still existed in the 1970s and 1980s, then I think there would have been at
least a fighting chance to stymie Rupert Murdoch's entry into USA mass media, on the
grounds that as a prominent royal subject, he was hostile to republicanism. I think similar
grounds will be needed to begin to effectively attack and turn back the Kochs, the NRA, the
Tea Party, the Federalist Society, etc.
Ron (RC) Weakley (A.K.A., Darryl For A While At EV) , August 28, 2020 8:15
am
@Tony Wikrent,
Well then you get high marks for your knowledge of history and your use of semantics
and your rationalizations in defense of the status quo. I will go so far as to give you
that we have a dollar representative republic or even a dollar democracy rather than a
hereditary aristocracy.
There are three general classes of elites; economic or wealthy, political or
technocratic, and intellectual or academic Systemically, all power flows from wealth
since politicians need the wealthy for campaign finance and media access while academics
need wealthy patrons to fatten their stipends and bonuses and fund their research. The
Rockefeller family appears to have been better at preserving the inter-generational
succession of wealth and power. Presently capitalism is attempting to work out which will
happen first, the euthanasia of the rentier or the euthanasia of the laborer.
"... The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl into. ..."
"... If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only protection. ..."
"...the terrible training and general ineptitude of the police is at the core of the
problem."
You are missing the point: the Police are very well trained, and indoctrinated. There is
nothing accidental in their behaviour. And the police culture is pretty well
internationalised. It is very similar in Canada and the UK for example. And, as we have seen
during the past year in France too.
It is a fascistic culture in which racism is an inherited and central but by no means
essential part. The Police are an crucial part of the neo-liberal system. And part of the
reward they get for doing as they are told, busting strikes, kettling demonstrators,
terrorising poor neighbourhoods and protecting private property, is a loose rein: they can do
more or less anything that they want. No Judge will do more than slap their wrists, the
Juries will thank them for their service. For certain personalities, in which US culture is
richly endowed, the right to run wild as part of the biggest biker gang in the world, is a
marvellous reward.
They are not only heavily armed but recruited, in large measure from the imperial armed
forces; there is nothing like a tour of duty in Afghanistan or Iraq to demonstrate impunity
in action.
The cops are the iron fist in the class system, defended by the judiciary, the
legislatures and the broad ideological apparatus, from the media to the educational system.
And backed up by armed and civilian militias, in most of which off duty cops and 'veterans'
of imperial adventures play leading roles. The police stations are gang headquarters in which
violence and contempt for democracy and legality are celebrated. And bullying is the secret
to success and advancement.
To put the matter in perspective- cops shoot about 1000 US civilians a year, about 25 a
week. And most of them are poor people, a constituency in which Black people are over
represented after centuries of discrimination and exploitation regimes enforced by
violence.
The neo-liberal ideology, like many of its predecessor bodies of ideas and alibis for
theft, teaches people that poverty is a mark of personal failure and moral turpitude. It also
teaches that crime pays and that it is a constant temptation for the poor who, left
unregulated, would help themselves to the wealth that members of the ruling class worked so
hard for, from the very earliest age, by choosing the right fallopian tubes to crawl
into.
It may be that b is right in his analysis. But it is also possible that-given the stark
nature of the facts surrounding these cases- public opinion will recognise that the one
constant in all these problems is the police system and the Gulags for private profit which
not only dwarf anything the Soviet Union ever developed, in terms of numbers, but in terms of
licence, unregulated violence and disregard for natural law hark back to the worst days of
the plantation culture.
If such a reaction takes place it will lead to the formation of self defence militias
where they are needed on the communities of the poor. And the failure of Biden /Harris would
be a positive development in the discrediting of the corrupt "misleadership" class
exemplified in the campaign to defeat Sanders and nominate Biden, which was based on the
sense, in the Black community, that the Democrats- headed by the author of incarceration laws
and one of the most evil prosecutors California has seen in the modern era-are their only
protection.
I agree with whoever wrote that it come down to culture.
The culture in the US and the West are the the result of the social contract that has
finance be a private owned and controlled element. It created the top/bottom class structure
which has been glossed over with left/right brainwashing.
The elite have manufactured the ignorance underpinning the misdirected protesting we are
seeing and all the "undesirables" who have been created by the system of inequality of
opportunity. The manufacturing of ignorance is called agnotology and came out of the study of
the decades long propaganda by the nicotine industry about cancer......are we sure, we are
sure, we are sure, we are sure that smoking causes cancer?
There are a few of us out here saying that private banking causes the culture you are
seeing in America and China is showing the way with purely sovereign central banking and
finance. We see the rest of you as victims of agnotology.
The essay makes the important observation that no one at the convention spoke in support
of skilled blue-collar jobs. Thus, their plan is to NOT bring the globalized manufacturing
jobs home, and, globalize (use migrants) the non-manufacturing jobs by offering free college
to all rather than a Germany-like trade-school track. After all, how hard can it possibly be
to become an electrician?
Yawn. We have 2 party tyranny. The real power controls both parties. Trumps done a great
job for those in power. DNC told to stand down, so they are running Demented Biden and some
scary lady
Reading CS Lewis "That Hideous Strength"
"Don't you understand anything? Isn't it absolutely essential to keep a fierce Left and a
fierce Right both on their toes and each terrified of the other? That's how we get things
done. Any opposition to the N.I.C.E. is represented as a Left racket in the Right papers and
a Right racket in the Left papers. If it's properly done you get each side out-bidding the
other in support of us -- to refute the enemy slanders. Of course we're non-political. The
real power always is."
The country is being prepared for an excruciating restructuring that will create a
permanent underclass that will provide an endless source of sweatshop labor for the
multinational carpetbaggers. Those jobs will likely go to members of the Dems rainbow
coalition while white, working class people will be seen as a potential threat to the
emerging new order .
Well put, Mike Whitney.
I would note the following:
a. Plenty of non-whites becoming leery of globalism and all its lies, which means more
than a few will vote for Trump in the (I think mistaken) view he actually wants to stop it.
Delay, maybe; stop it, no.
b. We have a situation here that could be similar to South Africa in the recent past, but
I am not aware of any bands of "youths" raping and pillaging their way through America's
agricultural areas. From what I can see, the urban USA is seceding from country USA. What
might change this is a serious food shortage, power outages, and the like. White folk in the
country better do some serious prepping, if they have not already.
c. There has never been a better time for a real Third Party in America. If Trump loses,
the only reason will be a broad realization that Red and Blue are both in plutocrat
pockets.
d. It would help if this potential Third Party was specifically aimed at the American
worker and the unique "displacement" all of them have over the last forty years. Base it as
broadly as possible. Any nation's population has a pyramid earning structure and the strength
of the base is a measure of how well those above will live. Right now the base is about to
disappear.
This country has had a one party tyranny for decades it's just becoming more obvious.
But the real situation is the Republican and Democrat parties are just two sides of the
Deep State coin.
The Deep State doesn't care about the unimportant internecine squabbles of the two
parties as long as their important issues are advanced (wealth and power). As a matter of
fact it strengthens the false perception that there is a choice when voting.
The author misses the unique opportunity that now exists. The GOP under GW Bush, McCain,
and Romney was a clone of the DNC, yielding a two headed uniparty.
Trump has opened the door that could bring back a true two party choice.
There have been no new wars under Trump. The #NeverTrump NeoConDemocrats have angrily
returned to their ancestral home in the DNC. The two parties have a true substantive
difference on this point:
-- The DNC is the foreign intervention party.
-- The GOP is moving away from NeoCon contamination.
If you want to avoid foreign wars, you need to vote for the GOP. All we have now is a
corner stone. It will take votes over multiple election cycles to build walls and lock in
this position. This is not about Trump's personality. It is about long-term change.
It's clear that the Dems anticipate resistance to their plan by the contemptible way
they have branded struggling workers as "white nationalists" and "racists".
Divide and conquer is as old as civilization itself and just as effective as the first
time it was used. Some baby's never learn.
Democrats are in bed with the deep state, take billions from the largest corporations, and
conduct the most undemocratic nominating process ever seen in the US, but thank god they are
not fascists!
Trezrek500 , 2 hours ago
It is amazing, Bezos becomes the richest guy in the world and the delivery of his packages
is subsidized by tax payers. The USPS should triple their rates to AMZN. Problem solved.
So Youtube(=Google) allows the Democrats free campaign publicity (through CNN) but not the
Republicans? Important in 2020 because Covid-19 limits conventions to virtual mainly.
There has never been a real choice in the American elections. Whatever one can say against
the DNC line-ups, one can say much more against the other side as well. Of course the whole
show, on both sides, is a cringfest. By the way have you heard that the couple pointing guns
at protesters are scheduled to speak at RNC? Now that is a true cringfest. Happy day to
everyone!
That must be Chinese interference. The US propaganda operation that is called intelligence
says China is backing sleepy Joe.
But don't worry, the Russians are backing Trump so they'll get him on youtube ... so as long
as the Iranians don't take youtube down so no one becomes pres.
That'd be a pain. Everyone standing around waiting for the Iranians to put youtube back on
so they could have an election.
"The United States its also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance,
they have two of them." - Julius Nyerere (1922-1999), President of Tanzania
CBC radio today had a sound bite from former Secretary of State Colin Powell, saying
something like "I grew up in the South Bronx and Joseph Biden grew up in Scranton, where his
parents gave him the same values."
So Powell is all in for Biden, not surprising since they are both members of the Democratic
Party.
Great picture too, I remember all too well the absolute absurdity of the stunts and media
events following the September 11, 2001 thing. People I know were there in downtown NYC,
unfortunately my friend and colleague was in one of the towers and did not make it out, leaving
her husband and two children behind.
The following years were only made tolerable by David Rees's comics as he lampooned, amongst
many other horrors, the dropping of aid packages, yellow, and cluster bombs, also yellow, on
Afghanistan. Here's a link to Get Your War On , his
compilation of those comics.
Those 2 years in New York and I suppose the rest of the world opened our eyes to the reality
of what the United States of America was capable of.
Powell with his vial of "anthrax" at the United Nations was but one example of the avalanche
of propaganda that ensued.
To keep this post short I'll simply state that the current mediated world did not create
itself.
"... 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.
The first and the most important fact that there will no elections in November -- both candidates represent the same oligarchy,
just slightly different factions of it.
Look like NYT is controlled by Bolton faction of CIA. They really want to overturn the
results of 2020 elections and using Russia as a bogeyman is a perfect opportunity to achieve this
goal.
Neocons understand very well that it is MIC who better their bread, so amplifying rumors the simplify getting additional budget
money for intelligence agencies (which are a part of MIC) is always the most desirable goal.
Notable quotes:
"... But a new assessment says China would prefer to see the president defeated, though it is not clear Beijing is doing much to meddle in the 2020 campaign to help Joseph R. Biden Jr. ..."
"... The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's confidence in our democratic process." ..."
"... But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences", "increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections? ..."
"... But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn? ..."
"... Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any evidence. ..."
"... Is there a secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S. people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China? ..."
"... If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them? ..."
"... Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off their budget. ..."
"... Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose. ..."
But when one reads the piece itself one finds no fact that would support the 'Russia
Continues Interfering' statement:
Russia is using a range of techniques to denigrate Joseph R. Biden Jr., American intelligence
officials said Friday in their first public assessment that Moscow continues to try to
interfere in the 2020 campaign to help President Trump.
At the same time, the officials said China preferred that Mr. Trump be defeated in
November and was weighing whether to take more aggressive action in the election.
But officials briefed on the intelligence said that Russia was the far graver, and more
immediate, threat. While China seeks to gain influence in American politics, its leaders have
not yet decided to wade directly into the presidential contest, however much they may dislike
Mr. Trump, the officials said.
The assessment, included in a
statement released by William R. Evanina, the director of the National
Counterintelligence and Security Center, suggested the intelligence community was treading
carefully, reflecting the political heat generated by previous findings.
The authors emphasize the scaremongering hearsay from "officials briefed on the
intelligence" - i.e. Democratic congress members - about Russia but have nothing to back it
up.
When one reads the
statement by Evanina one finds nothing in it about Russian attempts to interfere in the
U.S. elections. Here is the only 'evidence' that is noted:
For example, pro-Russia Ukrainian parliamentarian Andriy Derkach is spreading claims about
corruption – including through publicizing leaked phone calls – to undermine
former Vice President Biden's candidacy and the Democratic Party. Some Kremlin-linked actors
are also seeking to boost President Trump's candidacy on social media and Russian television.
After a request from Rudy Giuliani, President Trump's personal attorney, a Ukrainian
parliamentarian published Ukrainian
evidence of Biden's very real interference in the Ukraine. Also: Some guest of a Russian TV
show had an opinion. How is either of those two items 'evidence' of Russian interference in
U.S. elections?
The statement then claims: "Ahead of the 2020 U.S. elections, foreign states will continue to use covert and overt
influence measures in their attempts to sway U.S. voters' preferences and perspectives, shift
U.S. policies, increase discord in the United States, and undermine the American people's
confidence in our democratic process."
But how do the 'intelligence' agencies know that foreign states want to "sway preferences",
"increase discord" or "undermine confidence" in elections?
The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a
long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the
United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the
flames.
But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often
mistaken for true intent. [...] Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring
down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?
Well there is none. And that is why the 'intelligence' agencies do not present any
evidence.
Even the NYT writers have to
admit that there is nothing there:
The release on Friday was short on specifics, ...
and
Intelligence agencies focus their work on the intentions of foreign governments, and steer
clear of assessing if those efforts have had an effect on American voters.
How do 'intelligence' agencies know Russian, Chinese or Iranian 'intentions'. Is there a
secret policy paper by the Russian government that says it should "increase discord" in the
United States? Is there some Chinese think tank report which says that undermining U.S.
people's confidence in their democratic process would be good for China?
If the 'intelligence' people have copies of those papers why not publish them?
Let me guess. The 'intelligence' agencies have nothing, zero, nada. They are just making
wild-ass guesses about 'intentions' of perceived enemies to impress the people who sign off
their budget.
Nowadays that seems to be their main purpose.
Posted by b on August 8, 2020 at 18:08 UTC |
Permalink
As America separates into two distinct substances – one nation dissolving into two
– we should perhaps pay more attention to the psychology underlying this segmentation,
and not just to its 'politics'. Clearly, the latter is vital to understanding the U.S.
Furthermore, these two U.S. psychic states of mind are playing out across the Middle East and
beyond – not so much in a strategic way, but as the projection of inner psyche. This
projection seeks to demonstrate its moral validation externally, in a way that cannot be done
internally – for the balance of forces domestically is such that neither party can, as
they would like, force the submission of the 'other' to their worldview; neither can prevail
decisively.
Not even the November election will settle matters in any final way. It might, rather,
sharpen the contest further.
What are the key vectors to this scission? It is firstly, that in the U.S., 'facts' are no
longer tolerated as facts. Facts like ideology, have separated into two irreconcilable camps,
each at each other's throats. And, secondly, any authority or sourcing for what is asserted as
fact, in today's world, has long fled the scene. Today we deal only with one psychic
'emotivism' (in Alasdair Macintyre's formulation), up and over, against, another. Much heat; no
light.
Those who do not agree are called any number of pejorative names, but which essentially are
meant to indicate that the other be a 'barbarian' in the old Roman sense: i.e. someone beneath
relevance; beneath one's attention; a 'babbler' (barbarian's original meaning). And worse:
these people lie, and would stoop to any illegitimate, seditionist (i.e. unconstitutional)
means, to obtain their illicit ends. That is how both parties, broadly, see each other.
Hyper-partisanship.
This is not really new – we knew it already. But what has this to do with the Mid-East
and beyond? Its salience is that, in pursuit of validation for one or other of these psychic
perspectives, one U.S. faction is prepared to force submission to the 'rightness' of America's
founding Christian Messianism – almost oblivious to potential consequence. To this end, a
large part of the Middle East is being threatened with societal and economic collapse.
Clearly, reason or diplomacy will not avail. It will be dismissed as babbling. It is
striking too, that some officials almost rejoice in the pain and starvation they may cause.
Their language unveils the implicit strata of religion to these actions: They speak to 'just
retribution'. If it is America's so-called 'interest' to collapse Hizbullah, Syria's President
Assad or Iran's Revolutionary government, then the American interest too, is that these whole
nations, their peoples, should suffer economic apocalypse. So be it: Merited.
As one American historian, Professor Vlahos,
describes the situation in the U.S.: not only has America separated into two nations, it
has, furthermore, divided into two separate religious sects, at odds with each other, yet both
reflecting polar sides to America's original religious impulse. One, (the party presently in
office), sees national identity rooted in an American, golden, earlier age, upholding property,
commerce and liberty as traditional inherited rights (signifiers of God's Grace, in the
Calvinist, Protestant meme).
The other (more in the apocalyptic vein), "looks to the future. They call themselves
progressives; see the perfection and purity that lies ahead, and looks to the past as a deep
and dark stain – as an imperfect, barbarous, primitive past that needs to be cast off
– and a shining uplifting future needing to be sustained". Both are existential and
conflicting visions,
Professor Vlahos says , "telling us how to live; defining good and evil, there is no place
for compromise between them".
The killing of George Floyd, however, has ignited an uneasy truce into flames. Floyd's
killing has become the iconic symbol – surpassing it specific content – to compare
in the depth and intensity of the cultural animosities on both sides – to the Dreyfus
affair in France between 1897–1899. In The Proud Tower, Barbara Tuchman writes that
Dreyfus, a Jewish officer suspected of spying for the Germans, never a particularly notable
personality to begin with, became an 'abstraction' to his supporters and detractors. She
summarized:
"Each side fought for an idea, its idea of France: one the France of
Counter-Revolution, the other the France of 1789, one for its last chance to arrest
progressive social tendencies and restore the old values; the other to cleanse the honour of
the Republic, and preserve it from the clutches of reaction".
Will Collins
writes in The American Conservative that "it is hard to think of a more apt comparison to
the current moment. The language of existential conflict was mainstreamed on the American Right
by the 2016 election. A now-infamous essay, "The Flight 93 Election," compared voting for
Donald Trump to a desperate attempt to retake a hijacked plane from the 9/11 terrorists. On the
Left, the incremental liberalism of the Obama administration has given way to something more
radical, a thoroughgoing critique of American institutions and history that suggests –
and sometimes says outright – that revolutionary change is the only path forward".
These two conflicted psychic images are defining not just America's domestic arena, but
global geo-politics, too. Acutely aware of these schisms, Americans are becoming easily
agitated and angered by notions that China or Russia might wedge the void.
Unprecedented recent sanctions on the Syrian and Lebanese peoples (via the Caesar Act)
similarly are the effusion of a stridently-held, yet contested missionary vision. These
comprehensive sanctions are
precisely intended to harm people – even to starve them, or precipitate them into
civil war. That is what they are meant to do – U.S. Envoy to Syria, James Jeffrey,
celebrated the fact that U.S. sanctions against Damascus have "contributed to the collapse"
of the Syrian economy.
And this is the 'good/evil' temper of the moment. For such a dark fate is precisely what
many conservative Americans would like to visit upon those fellow Americans who occupy
Seattle's Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone (or now 'Protest Zone'– i.e. CHAZ).
They would like the electricity, the water and the food cut-off. For this is America's
internal contradiction: These BLM protestors hate America's Golden Age: they regard the latter
as a "dark stain", a barbarous primitive era that must be cast-off. The 'party of the Golden
Age' would love to see the CHAZ occupiers' starved into submission – only they can't. It
would spark internal U.S. turmoil, and a return of, most probably, violent protest.
But for the luckless people of Syria, Lebanon , Iraq and Iran, being sanctioned into
oblivion is no problem. They are 'morally stained' in both U.S. 'visions'. One U.S. party
cannot abide their rejection of America's righteous 'moral' vision; and the other sees these
nations to be residing in such barbarous, primitive and imperfect conditions, that
state-overthrow becomes inevitable, and to be desired. (Most of Europe falls into this latter,
hyper partisan category, too, if couched in a veneer of 'liberalism').
Looked at through this psychological lens, Israel and Palestinians fall into a different
place. It is a case of Israeli 'ordinary vice': Most 'golden age' Americans of course, see
Israel as walking a parallel path to their own. There is real empathy. But not so from the
'awokened' 20+ year-old, BLM-supporting, generation of Americans.
Their 'woke' ideology is radical. They view the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s as having
unequivocally sold-out. No place for compromise now: America is both innately racist and
oppressive. Its founding principles must be ripped out and replaced. BLM is waging this
struggle against the U.S. founding principles, but the fight against U.S. empire, are
one and the
same , they say.
It is not clear whether the woke 20+ generation, in alliance with BLM, has succeeded in
suborning the older, liberal generation of Democrat leaders, CEOs and senior police and
military officers who lately have knelt before the altar of the BLM agenda – or if BLM
simply is being used by the latter as a tool against Donald Trump. If the latter, it will not
be the first time that the mainstream has co-opted a radical movement to use for its own ends,
only subsequently to discover that that is they – the mainstream –were the dog
'wagged' by its radical 'tail'. (The history of Salafism and its jihadists comes to mind, in
this context.)
The question is mere quibble: What is undeniable is that wokeness is coursing through parts
of Europe and America faster than the Coronavirus infection. Whilst Israelis love diversity
politics, they are frightened by the liberal-BLM discourse of a coming struggle against racism
and oppression.
Unless this 'awokening' butts up against an early 'herd-immunity' in Europe and America,
this current will impact the region in ways that are not at this juncture foreseeable, but
likely inevitable. Already Israelis are showing greater nervousness about annexation in the
West Bank, and the Jordan Valley; and Gulf States led by the authoritarian UAE, are preparing
to cast-off from the U.S. wharf, and pleading for a new berth in a safe Israeli
harbour.
Are they sensing a change in the wind? Seeking safety? Will the region's own 20+ generation
assimilate the spirit of wokeness?
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
Yves here. The Democrats don't want to admit that the Republicans are more ruthless and
shameless than they are. Or else they only care about winning certain elections and they are
confident in their ability to control them. The Democrats have been far more willing to play
games in primaries .
Separately, I don't get how the Democrats don't get they may be in trouble despite Biden's
big national poll lead. The Democrats have never taken voter registration seriously because
they don't want lower income voters to have too much influence in the party, and low income
voters are the most transient. Democratic party voters even more likely now due to Covid-19
financial stresses to have had an address change and need to re-register to vote. If you think
vote-by-mail schemes that are already struggling to operate properly, even assuming good faith,
will handle new registrants in their districts well, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The original Mayor Daley wasn't the first, but he was the best at election manipulation.
Daley would have not supported verifiable elections for the obvious reason. Why don't today's
Democrats support verifiable elections?
Everyone I know wants Trump to lose. Do you know anyone who actually wants Biden to
win?"
-- Howie Klein, here
I've often contended that neither political party -- not the Democrats, not the Republicans
-- wants free, open, verifiable and uncorrupted elections.
Both parties, of course, say they want fair elections. The Republicans use these
pronouncements, though, as cover for creating obstacles to voting by Democratic-leaning
citizens based on demographics like race and place of residence. That much is a given, and this
hypocrisy is obvious to everyone,
including Republicans .
But what about the Democratic Party? There the situation is more mixed, but it's not
unmixed . I cut my adult teeth in Chicago, the perfect model, if not ground zero, for
election manipulation, and there are many Chicago's in the country.
There are also many approaches to stealing elections, but one of the most common is faked
and manipulated vote totals, and for that, the solution is well known: hand-counted paper
ballots . Given that fact, you have to ask yourself: If Democratic leaders really wanted
uncorrupted elections -- as opposed to just elections they could win -- wouldn't they demand a
national return to hand-counted paper ballots, the gold standard for honest elections
?
And yet they don't. Year after year they keep the same corruptible voting systems in place,
often expanding them, and focus their fire instead on Republican gerrymandering and voter list
purges as evidence of the other party's evil and their own goodness.
It's likely there's a simple and obvious reason for Democratic leadership not seeking to
secure our elections with hand-counted ballots, but it's not a pretty one: Like the
Republicans, Democratic leaders, many or most of whom hate progressives with a passion, also
want the ability to "fix" elections when they wish to.
"Ballot-Stuffing" in Philadelphia
For example, consider
this , from the Philly Voice:
South Philly judge of elections pleads guilty to stuffing ballot boxes, accepting
bribes
Prosecutors say Domenick DeMuro, 73, inflated results for Democratic primary
candidates
A former judge of elections in South Philadelphia pleaded guilty this week to fraudulently
stuffing ballot boxes for Democratic candidates in recent primary elections, accepting bribes
from a political consultant hired to help influence local election results.
During the 2014, 2015 and 2016 primary elections, DeMuro admitted that he accepted bribes
ranging from $300 to $5,000 per election. A political consultant hired by specific Democratic
candidates gave DeMuro a cut of his fee to add votes for these candidates, who were running
for judicial and various state, federal and local elected offices.
DeMuro would "ring up" extras votes on machines at his polling station, add them to the
totals and later falsely certify that the voting machine results were accurate, prosecutors
said.
U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain said, "DeMuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by
literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he
thought the coast was clear."
This happens all the time and is rarely caught and punished. In this case, it's
likely the bribes from a "political consultant hired by specific Democratic candidates" were
the only reason DeMoro was prosecuted. A number of hand-made videos during the 2016 primary
showed similar corrupt "certifications" at the local level, all of them disadvantaging Bernie
Sanders, yet none of these videos sparked an ounce of indignation from "free election"
Democratic leaders -- whose preferred candidate, it should be noted, Hillary Clinton, benefited
every time.
"Progressive Democrat" Blocks Gerrymandering Reform in Nevada
Or consider this sordid tale from Nevada, in which the local League of Women Voters
attempted to eliminate gerrymandering following a recent Supreme Court decision that returned
gerrymandering lawsuits to the states to resolve.
Apparently some Democrats think gerrymandering is fine in blue states
In June of 2019 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that federal
courts will no longer accept partisan gerrymandering cases. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for
the majority that partisan gerrymandering is a political issue that must be resolved at the
state level. In response, the League of Women Voters U.S. launched a People Powered Fair Maps
plan to create barriers to partisan gerrymandering in each state.
The League of Women Voters of Nevada adopted the plan and reached out to our democracy
partners to form the Fair Maps Nevada coalition. On November 4, 2019, Fair Maps Nevada filed
a constitutional amendment ballot initiative to create an independent redistricting
commission. Nevada's constitution protects the right to circulate a ballot initiative as well
as the right to vote on ballot questions.
So far, so good. But wait:
On November 27, 2019, Mr. Kevin Benson, a Carson City attorney, filed a lawsuit
challenging the ballot question's summary of effect for a "progressive Democrat." His
client argued that the summary of the amendment that appears on each signature sheet was
misleading. Fair Maps Nevada offered to edit the summary to clarify the amendment's intent,
but Mr. Benson refused. The Judge James Russell ultimately agreed with Mr. Benson's client
and asked both parties to submit new versions of the summary to address the plaintiff's
complaints.
It's suspicious that a self-proclaimed "progressive Democrat" would try to monkey-wrench the
process, but still, so far, so good. However:
Fair Maps Nevada submitted a new summary, but Mr. Benson did not. Instead, he argued
that the whole amendment was misleading and so should be blocked completely from moving
forward.
In other words, the whole exercise was a sham to get the entire process thrown out by the
local judge.
Essentially, Mr. Benson was asking Judge Russell to deny the Fair Maps Nevada coalition
our constitutionally protected right to circulate a petition. Judge Russell accepted Fair
Maps Nevada's new summary of the amendment and closed the case [in favor of Fair Maps
Nevada].
Still, the issue didn't die there. Benson took his appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, which
allowed it to go ahead. Fair Maps Nevada eventually won, but not before they realized (wasn't
it already obvious?) that this mystery litigant's real goal was to run out the
signature-gathering clock on the initiative. Further, the state Supreme Court failed to close
the legal loophole that allowed the appeal in the first place, preparing the way for similar
future challenges on the same spurious grounds.
Why would a Democrat , in Democratic-controlled Nevada, want to block gerrymandering
reform, if not to continue to benefit from the unreformed system?
The Danger for Democrats
The danger for Democrats in tolerating and continuing their own vote corruption is great.
When voters say "both parties do it" -- they're right. Perhaps Party leaders, national and
local, think they can get away with these acts given that most of the mainstream media -- busy
people's only source of news -- protects listeners and viewers from information that supports
the "both are corrupt" frame.
But that protection can't be effective forever. While most Sanders supporters, for example,
will vote for Joe Biden,
most won't give him money , under the assumption perhaps that his billionaires have that
covered. And this is widely seen as a race that most want neither candidate to win --
especially if you include non-voters -- even though even more voters want Trump to lose.
The bottom line is this: While Democratic leaders may think the situation -- their current
and safe control of their share of power -- is well managed, the nation may easily become so
alienated by both parties, and by the people's inability to vote outside the
two-corrupt-parties framework, that they seek "other avenues" for change.
Ironically, a "back to the normal" Biden administration may be just the match Americans need
to spark an active rebellion against the corruption of both political parties. One more round
of mainstream Democrats in charge, may be the last straw for that national beast of burden, our
suffering governed.
If that's the case, watch out. Democratic leaders are running out of time, as are we all.
When a nation seeks "other avenues" for reform, that nation's in trouble.
Yves here. We're behind on continuing with Paul Jay's important discussion with Thomas Frank
about his new book, The People, No, and the awfully open hatred in the press and contemporary
politics for the views of ordinary people. Here Frank focuses on the misuse of FDR's
legacy.
Readers like Frank's cheery tone and pleasant voice, so if you have time to listen, as
opposed to read the transcript, it's worth the extra time.
Hi, I'm Paul Jay, welcome to theAnalysis.news podcast.
This is part two of my discussion with Thomas Frank about his book, 'The People, No', I've
got to get the inflection right on that to get the proper ridicule dripping off the lips
of-
Thomas Frank
-So can I give it a shot, Paul? My daughter and I were actually working when I did the
audiobook of this. We're working on how to say the title. And here's what I finally came up
with, 'The People, No'.
Paul Jay
And anyway, once again, joining me is Thomas Frank, who has just told us how to say the
title of the book. And I assume everybody knows, but just in case, Thomas Frank is the author
of many books, most notably, 'What's the Matter with Kansas?', and he's in Kansas as we speak,
and 'Listen, Liberal', and his most recent book, he just told us how to say, 'The People, No',
and I refuse to whine, even if it captures the full meaning of the title.
All right. So we left off part one, as we head into the 1920s, the populist movement has
more or less fizzled out. It's kind of split, some of the movement has kind of assimilated into
democratic parties, some have gone into various socialist parties. And the 1920s is a period
where everyone's optimistic, capitalism seems to be just hunky-dory, lots of people are buying
into the stock market and borrowing, and there's the promise of wealth for everybody.
And then along comes The Great Crash in 1929, and we won't get into exactly why all that
happened, but not the least of which is the amount of speculation and leveraging, borrowing
money to buy stocks and other issues, and then we headed into the Great Depression. So this now
starts the beginning of -- may not have been called the next version of the populist movement,
but in substance, it's very similar.
So talk about the development of the movement in the thirties and how influenced is, what
was the populist movement coming out of areas like Kansas with the kind of socialist and
communist movement that's developing in some of the cities influenced by Marx, (Marxism is a
method of socioeconomic analysis that uses a materialist interpretation of historical
development, better known as historical materialism, to understand class relations and social
conflict as well as a dialectical perspective to view social transformation), and socialist
movements all over the world? I guess there are separate strains, but they're certainly very
related to it.
Thomas Frank
Yeah. So to take a step back, a lot of populists, when the People's Party fell apart after
the 1896 election, a lot of them went into the Socialist Party. And in fact, Kansas had a big
socialist contingent and so did Oklahoma, Oklahoma had the most socialist per capita of any
state, which is hard to believe because Trump won every single county there.
Paul Jay
But West Virginia used to be something like that.
Thomas Frank
Exactly, the same story there. But, in the 1930s, the word populist was not used to describe
the left-wing movements of the day, but it's appropriate because, in my mind, they come out of
the same tradition, the populist tradition, Franklin Roosevelt's talks, like the populists used
to, had a lot of ideas like they used to, and even more sort of important is the labor
movement. So the populists had reached out to organized labor in the 1890s. Some unions signed
up with them, but, by and large, their leadership did not because they didn't believe in
working, they didn't believe in having a political party. And, you know, they thought they
should work through the two main parties or something like that.
And by the 1930s, labor is very different. It's really radical, it's exploding in size,
let's put it that way. People are signing up for unions all over America and organized labor
becomes the great force of the decade, the great social movement. So every bit as big and as
powerful and as strong as the farmers, as the radical farmer movement had been in the 1890s,
and there were also radical farmers in the 30s. There were a bunch of them, and in Minnesota,
you had this thing called the Farmer-Labor Party. They still exist today, now, they've been
folded into the Democratic Party, but this was their heyday. They elected a very radical
governor of Minnesota. There were similar politicians, in all sorts of different parts of
America, but basically this sort of populist dream of bringing together all these different
working-class people, it succeeds in the 1930s and you have a very radical decade.
The culture of the decade is extremely populist. I'm thinking of the WPA mural, the
Hollywood movies even, you know, made by people like Frank Capra, all of them were, and we
mentioned Carl Sandburg in the last episode, sort of the great theme of the art of the 1930s
was the nobility of the common man, the people. It went along with the left-wing politics of
the period.
And so you finally did have a regulatory state and you finally had workers that were able to
organize and the government started the income tax that began in earnest, and there is deficit
spending and the government set up relief programs, they hired people to do public works. It
was an amazing time, a time of great ferment.
So as we mentioned at the very start of the show, Paul, the book is a history of different
sort of populist chapters in American life, but more importantly, it's a history of
anti-populism, of how people opposed the populist tradition, that's much more interesting to
me.
And what you see in the 30s is, in 1932, when Roosevelt was first elected, people really
didn't know what to expect. They didn't know what kind of president he would be, his platform
looked pretty conventional. He did talk big about the New Deal, but nobody knew what he meant
by that, by 1936, however, they did know and they knew what it consisted of, and it was,
regulating banks, regulating big business, you know, all the things that I just mentioned.
And again, you had what I call a democracy scare when the members of the elite in America
come together in this kind of iron-clad consensus against what they regard as the worst
elements of society who are trying to take power and sort of inflicting taxation and regulation
on their betters. And they talk this way very openly. And the groups I'm referring to in the
1930s, it's very similar to 1896. So it's newspaper publishers, of course, the Republican
Party, of course, and then the sort of union of business interests that was called the American
Liberty League. It's the first of the great right-wing front groups, and they raised an
extraordinary amount of money, they had more than a political party, more than the Republican
Party, and spent it to bring Roosevelt down.
And just like 1896, went on the warpath against him in this incredible way. And I, again,
have a lot of fun in the book quoting and giving illustrations of what their war on Roosevelt
looked like, it's very funny, but again there's a reason historians don't write about this
stuff, it's revolting, there's a lot of scientific racism that's bound up in the war on
Roosevelt, because, as I said, it's a democracy scare. So it's not just that they're angry at
Roosevelt, they perceive that the deplorables are coming to get them. You know, it's the whole
sort of bottom half of society is trying to get above its station, is trying to order its
betters around.
Paul Jay
There's a section of the U.S. elites that were very pro-Hitler, starting, of course, with
Henry Ford who was a sort of well-known one. It was given the equivalent of the Iron Cross by
Hitler.
Thomas Frank
Wait, isn't that Lindbergh?
Paul Jay
No, no. Henry Ford. Ford used to send Hitler, I think it was $500,000 every year on his
birthday (in today's dollars).
Thomas Frank
Oh, my God.
Paul Jay
And Hitler actually credited Ford with inspiring his anti-Semitism and opening his eyes to
the threat of the Jews
Thomas Frank
Really?
Paul Jay
Oh yeah, Hitler was a big fan of Ford and vice versa.
Thomas Frank
I was surprised at how much fascism there was in the United States in the 30s. William
Randolph Hearst ran newspaper columns by Göring, I didn't know that. I mean, there were
all sorts of little local fascist groups that were set up to break strikes, that sort of
thing.
Paul Jay
General Motors was arming Hitler. When Hitler invaded Poland, he was doing it in vehicles
made by GM.
Thomas Frank
What really got me, Paul, is reading through the sort of barrage of hate directed at
Roosevelt, and it's like I say, it's almost exactly analogous to what they did to William
Jennings Bryan in 1896, and I was reading through it. You know, the Internet is such a
wonderful thing, Paul, you can do this research without going to the archives or to the
library, right, but you don't have to spend every waking hour there anymore, you can do so much
of it over the Internet. I was able to read all of these pamphlets issued by the American
Liberty League, many of which were transcriptions of radio speeches and the red-baiting of
Roosevelt is just incredible. And as I mentioned before, the eugenics, I was so surprised at
how many times these antagonists of the New Deal, and these are prestigious men, these are
leading economists, leading lawyers, leading captains of industry, came back to eugenics as a
way of describing what they were trying to say, which is that the ruling class rules because
they are better people.
Paul Jay
So FDR does not try to have, quote-unquote, bipartisan politics because of this populous
support, he fights his enemies, he does not try to compromise with these other sections of the
elites, which is kind of in itself fascinating. And then he picks --
Thomas Frank
They do offer the olive branch to him very early on. The elites say you know, go back on the
gold standard, stop encouraging workers to organize, this is what the National Association of
Manufacturers, one of the big corporate front groups, said to him. And he and his associates
basically laughed it off. They're like, 'no way, no way are we doing that', and so then the war
was on, yes, and he did not compromise.
This is one of the most extraordinary things about Roosevelt, he fought them very
forthrightly and was really upfront about it, gave prime time radio speeches about what he saw
happening. 'We have taken the power away from this country's dynastic rulers and they want
their power back', and he said this to the American people, and it rang true. I mean, they
could see that that was the case in their own lives.
Paul Jay
And he advocated something that, frankly, even Bernie Sanders didn't advocate, although I'm
sure he supports, Roosevelt advocated public ownership, though. He talked about the electrical
utilities.
Thomas Frank
Yes.
Paul Jay
And if they can't service the population with effective and reasonably priced electricity,
then they should be taken over and turned into publicly owned utilities, and you can extend
that principle.
Thomas Frank
Yes, he did say that, and that's the famous, what's the law called, PUHCA (Public Utility
Holding Company Act ), I'm trying to remember what it stands for. It finally got repealed and
or mostly got repealed of one of the big deregulatory measures a couple of decades ago.
Paul Jay
You once said something to me in one of the interviews we did earlier, "that the liberal
elites that run the Democratic Party, the aristocracy of the Democratic Party, it's not that
they don't like the left of the party, Bernie Sanders and such, they hate it," you said, I'm
quoting you.
Thomas Frank
They just despise them, yeah.
Paul Jay
And I think it's really interesting that they idealize or idolize FDR, but they despise the
actual policies he advocated and the people that supported him.
Thomas Frank
That is exactly right they like him because he was a winner, and look, he is the reason you
have a Democratic Party today. It all goes back to Franklin Roosevelt. So they admire him
because he was a master politician. I was reading one of the biographies of him, they said you
could take a map of America and draw a line across it, and every county that the line went
through, Roosevelt could tell you who it voted for, who is in charge in that county, what the
issues were that the people there cared about, etc. So he was an excellent, preternaturally
good politician. And, yeah, if it wasn't for him the Democratic Party would not really exist
today. So they have to admire him. But, yeah, you're exactly right, they hate and despise the
kind of people that supported him and that made up his administration, and that we're doing
things in the 1930s that made this country a middle class.
You know, Paul all my conversations with you, we come back to the ironies of American
history. The success of the New Deal gives you, in turn, the great middle class, suddenly
blue-collar workers are paid, not suddenly but you give the New Deal a couple of decades to
work, and by the 1960s, blue-collar workers are being paid. They're middle-class citizens and
they have a house in the suburbs and they have two cars and etc., and a lot of them become
Republicans. I'm sorry, that's too much, I bit off too much there. I want to go back to the
30s, I want to stick with Roosevelt.
So the campaign against him is shocking, but it involves the same kind of iron-clad
consensus of elites that you saw in the 1890s. And I think the best illustration of this is,
one I just found by chance. I was reading, of all things, Thomas Hart Benton's memoirs. Benton
was from Kansas City. And I finally got around to reading his memoirs, I meant to read it for
many years. He used to just drive around the state of Missouri, just meeting people, you know,
taking pictures of them, you know, painting them, and that summer he describes, you know,
driving around, meeting people, and he's in the home of a banker somewhere, a retired banker, a
man of standing, and Benton apparently makes the grave faux pas of saying something nice about
the New Deal, you know, and the banker just erupts and talks about how we're going to put your
class back in their place and we have the machine guns and this kind of thing, this is a most
extraordinary outburst. But that was the feeling on the ground, this hatred of Roosevelt, the
newspapers of this country just absolutely despised the man.
And I take a whole lot of illustrations of this from the Chicago Tribune, which is legendary
for their anti-Roosevelt invective. They would put every day on the front page or there would
be a little notice at the bottom, this is in 1936, leading up to the election, it would say
"You have X number of days in which to save your country", however many days it was counting
down to the election and they did this every day, and you can look it all up, its all easy to
find online now, you can go back and read your Chicago Tribune and they would run an editorial
every day under the headline "Throw the Rascals Out", you know, denouncing Roosevelt as a
communist, denouncing him as, "it's class war", these people are incompetent, these people are
paranoid, these people are mentally ill, "they" meaning the new dealers. You know, this is the
worst elements of society trying to lorded over their rightful masters, this is the world
turned upside down, that's how they greeted the New Deal, and then, of course, he won in one of
the greatest landslides of all time, Roosevelt totally prevailed.
So they were able to defeat William Jennings Bryan with this strategy, but Roosevelt beat
them. He had the radio, he had his support among the people. His support was very strong, they
could see he wasn't really a communist, he wasn't really crazy, he wasn't a dictator, he wasn't
an authoritarian, they could see that and they could hear his voice on the radio. And he won in
this overwhelming landslide. Where was I going with all this? The thing is that it was another
democracy scare, so this was a pattern, Paul, that recurs throughout American history. In 1896,
then again in 1936, and it always consists of the same thing, so the press comes together
unanimity, you have this coming together of academics, there are all of these statements signed
by a whole bunch of economists, something that you see, again, in our own time. But orthodoxy,
orthodoxy is the key orthodoxy came together against Roosevelt and his experimentation. And
this whole idea of the unfit members of society rising up against their betters.
Paul Jay
So we head into World War Two, and I'm going to just jump through so many things that one
should talk about if you're digging into this.
Thomas Frank
But that's what the book does, the whole idea is to do this episodically because you can't
do the whole history, right.
Paul Jay
I want to hit something that maybe isn't as touched into the book, but I think we need to
talk about, Roosevelt's vice president by this point is Henry Wallace. And it's really of
mainstream politicians that really embody these kinds of progressive, populist, socialist
ideals it's certainly as socialistic as you'd get it in a vice president.
Thomas Frank
Yeah, and from Iowa, from this sort of radical farmer. Actually, he didn't think of himself
as a radical, but he was from this sort of farmer background, farmer labor background-
Paul Jay
-The policy he came to in the end was as radical as anything you could find him, and that
kind of politics. But at the Democratic convention, I guess it's in 1945
Thomas Frank
1944, yeah, they tossed him overboard.
Paul Jay
They dump Wallace, Truman becomes president. Then Truman drops atomic weapons on Japan and
is part of, goes along with ushering in the House un-American Activities Committee,
McCarthyism, which attacks anything that's certainly anything communists, socialists, but even
anything populist, anything that even smells slightly of a kind of left populism gets viciously
attacked and, you know, practically drives it underground in the 1950s.
Thomas Frank
Yeah.
Paul Jay
And that becomes who the Democratic Party is for quite some time.
Thomas Frank
Yeah, but I would go easier on Truman than that. It is true that he sort of unleashed the
McCarthyism, but he clearly thought it was out of hand when McCarthy got going. You know,
McCarthy called him a communist.
Paul Jay
Yeah, well, not just the McCarthyism, because there's no bigger democracy scare than the
Cold War.
Thomas Frank
Yeah. Well, that's another great moment of hysteria. I'm getting way ahead of myself here,
but I feel often like we're living through some version of that again today, you know, but
we'll talk about that later. What they did to, Henry Wallace is one of the heroes of the book,
so Henry Wallace also was a great user of the populist language. He wrote a book even called,
'The Century of the Common Man', and it was supposed to be his reply, his pushback to when Time
magazine said that this is the American century, he said, no, this is the century of the common
man. That kind of language was very common in the New Deal days, and especially during the
World War Two iteration of the New Deal when they were trying to persuade the rest of the world
that we were not just fighting to rescue the British Empire, which is what we turned out to
do.
Truman was clearly less radical than Wallace, but he did do a couple of really wonderful
things. And one of them, I mean, they didn't get anywhere, but he's the one that proposed
universal health care for America and really fought for it and was beaten on this, this is
within two years of the end of World War two, the right is pushing back in exactly the way that
you just described, and his universal health care never gets anywhere, but we've never got it
in this country, and damn, it would be nice if we had it now, I keep thinking about that as we
go through this epidemic.
Paul Jay
See, the way I see it, from Truman, and then you get into, and Kennedy, and the party gives
up this kind of, real policies to some extent rhetorical, but actual policies of Roosevelt, of
taking on the concentration of wealth, taking on the big banks. There's a fascinating quote
from Roosevelt where he says "this merging of corporate interests and the government and the
state is the definition of fascism", and it's in one of Roosevelt's speeches.
The Democratic Party turns its back on all of that after World War Two and becomes
(associated) with Kennedy, the party of the greatest expenditure on the military-industrial
complex ever, it starts with Truman. Ellsberg has an interesting quote, Daniel Ellsberg,
Pentagon papers, he said he thinks now, he said, "the Cold War was essentially a commercial
subsidy for the aerospace industry, they needed an excuse to spend all this money on
bullshit.
Thomas Frank
That's pretty cynical, but it's hard to avoid that conclusion when you live in, nowadays,
when you live in Washington, D.C. One of my friends was describing this the other day, he said
basically, " we fight these wars is just as a way of subsidizing these companies", that's what
we have the army for, it's just a subsidy racket for these private companies.
Paul Jay
The whole SAGE radar system, the thing, like Dr. Strangelove, a total fraud, never worked
for a day, over a trillion dollars over 25 years, goes on and on where the whole
military-industrial complex fight fundamentally driven by commercial interests with the excuse
being the Cold War. But the reason I'm going there is because the Democratic Party, at least an
important part of it, and the party still continue to control the machinery of it, is very much
that party and which includes the Vietnam War, and it's that section of the Democratic Party
that so despises what they call populism.
Thomas Frank
So I talk a lot in the book about the populist culture of the 1930s, and one of the sorts of
great expressions of that period was this movie 'Citizen Kane', which I'm sure you've seen and
I myself seen many times, but while I was writing the book, I finally got to see it in high
definition one of these modern TV sets. And I was really struck by it because, it's on the one
hand, very, you know, populist as all the stuff from that period is, but it's also the story of
a demagogue and the sort of left culture of the 1930s was very, very, very concerned with the
problem of the demagogue. But the fascinating point is that they could draw a bright line
between the demagogue and between legitimate populism. So Kane is the great demagogue and he's
appealing to the underprivileged and the underfed and all this, and it's all bullshit, and
everyone can see that. And, the other characters in the movie sort of reminding him of how full
of shit he is. Here's the thing that I want your that people don't remember, that's Donald
Trump's favorite movie.
Thomas Frank
Oh, he totally misunderstands it. He thinks that the demagogue character in the movie, Kane,
Citizen Kane is the hero. He doesn't get it.
So there's this moment where Kane is running for governor of New York and he's in speaking
in Madison Square Garden. And he's giving this kind of Trumpian speech, and there's this huge
picture of his own face behind it with his name in gigantic letters, and it's like that's what
they did at the Republican convention in 2016, remember Trump's name in huge letters, Trump
puts his name on everything. And one of the promises that Kane makes in this speech, do you
remember this, is to lock up his rival, he's going to throw his rival in prison and lock him
up. I was watching this and I'm like, oh, my God.
I suddenly get where Trump came up with all this crap. But there's this scene where that I
never noticed until I saw it on a high definition TV. Kane is talking to his wife or something,
there's a closeup on his face, he's wearing a fancy tie with a stick pin in it, and the stick
pin is the letter K, great big gold K, that's Trump. It's everything about Trump, these
incredible narcissists, you know.
It's a demagogue based on William Randolph Hearst, as imagined by Orson Welles, and this is
Trump's hero. Isn't that amazing?
Paul Jay
Okay, well, I'm jumping, too, but I've been wanting to ask you this, so now as good a time
as any, why does that type of narcissist, at least now days appeal to so many rural and some
working-class urban, but more rural, people, a complete, utter narcissistic character, so
obvious to see, and he's not the only one that appeals to people like that, why?
Thomas Frank
Oh, my God, Paul. That should be the subject of my next book, but there are so many people
that have tried to understand that. So we're putting aside, you know, the possible legitimate
reasons people might have for voting for Trump, which you and I have talked about at great
length, putting out some ideas, yeah, there are some. And we're also putting aside the sort of
scapegoating reasons, the sort of racist reasons that people might have voted for him. And
you're talking about something else, which I think is bound up in our mass culture in this
country and in sort of the logic of TV, the logic of specifically of reality TV, which has
taken over television entertainment. And yet people think there's something normal about that.
They think there's something maybe even admirable about that, by the way, I would include, I
think the left has gone down this path to a certain degree also, and we'll talk about this, I
hope, later on, what I call the utopia of scolding. I can't understand the logic of it because
it's not how you build a political movement.
Paul Jay
Let's hang on to that, because I think that's really important, and we're gonna do that in
the next segment. But I want to go at this a little more because it's not just a political
figure like Trump. I've always found it fascinating, I cannot quite understand a culture, which
at least until very recently, was very homophobic, loved Liberace, I mean, the gayest guy you
could find. I mean even somebody as narcissistic as Elvis Presley, I don't know the kind of
gold and stuff he wore. I mean, there's a reason why you go into a transvestite and other kinds
of clubs where people portray different characters and they love to portray Elvis Presley
because of the flamboyancy. How does that appeal to conservative rural Americans?
Thomas Frank
The same people who loved Woody Guthrie and the Joads (Grapes of Wrath), you know, we're the
people we keep on acomin'. Paul, I don't know the answer to that. Even if I did, I couldn't do
it in one minute, so.
That's the next book, man.
Paul Jay
Okay, that's the end of part two, we're going to do a part three with Thomas, please join us
for that on theAnalysis.news podcast.
TBH, I can't comment too much of FRD's domestic policies, because I never dug deep into
the domestic US politcs of the time, but his foreign policy was appaling, and to a large
extent was responsible (in not a good way) for the post WW2 world.
FDR was entirely naive in dealing with Stalin, who he tried to charm and failed miserably
while falling for Stalin's "intimacy". FDR's "Atlantic declaration" was nice in theory, but
in practice he ignored it, trying to run the same realpolitiks as before (for example,
sacrificing Polish London govt for Stalin's support of the UN's idea. Which was ironic,
because it was more or less proving that the UN would be mostly ineffectual anyways. Better
than the lame League of Nations, but ineffectual nevertheless).
His China politcs was a mess (appointing Stillwell to head China there was as dumb as it
comes because Stillwell understood nothing about fighting there) arguably directly leading to
the Chinese communist winning the inevitable civil war (and also arguably pushing Chiang from
a reformist to reactionary. There are historians who say that today's China is what Chian's
envisioned in 1930, as opposed to what Mao did)
His inability to deal with de Gaulle was famous (mind you, hardly anyone could, but in the
end the British had a better relationship with him than Americans, which few would have
believed before the war), and I could go on.
Do you mean Chinault, not Stilwell? I'd always had the impression that Stillwell was a
good soldier, but a lousy diplomat (despite his fluent mandarin and general sympathy for
ordinary Chinese). Chinault is I think considered to have been something of a disaster by
most historians of the period and he left a hell of a mess. China was such a confusing mess
at the time its hard to see what would have been the 'right' strategy for any outsider,
although it was certainly right to try to stop the Japanese from completely conquering the
country.
Stillwell hated Chennault (and vice versa), and in that row he (Stillwell) was actually
right, as Chennault held the dumb (but seems widely shared by some Allied commanders) idea
that you can win a war by bombing alone.
Stillwell's problem was the total inability to grasp the fact that the Chinese army (and,
to a large extent, Chindits and Marauders) didn't operate like the US land forces did. As in
the average Chinese consript was often conscripted forcefully, underfed, w/o any effective
armaments etc., fighting in environments that even trained Western soldiers struggled, yet
Stillwell kept asking things of them as if they were well trained and equipped troops
fighting somewhere on the plains of the US. And when they didn't perform, he blamed them, not
the himself, which pissed off many Chinese and British commanders who understood what was
happening on the ground much better.
Stillwelll also forced Chinese to concentrate on areas that sort of made sense
strategically, but caused them to lose/abandon areas that they had to hold on to feed the
army (as much as they could) – which he ignored. Say Burma was strategically important,
but it didn't help to feed Chinese army a whit.
For his good points, he did keep asking for more materiel, which FDR routinely denied (and
when anything was sent, it was sent to Chennault), but it was still w/o fully understanding
the practicalities on the ground.
The whole point of FDR's China policy was to keep China in the war with Japan. Which
Chiang knew, and often tried to blackmail the US by threatening to make peace with Japan.
This was way less efficient after it became apparent that the USSR would, sooner or later, go
into war with Japan as well.
But FDR tended to overpromise on materiel and under-deliver. Which was, in a way, one of
the reasons why at one time Chiang asked FDR for a massive loan which was refused (and
presented in the US media as "Chiang wants to cash that check for himself". No doubt
non-trivial part of the money would be gone, but likely still some would make it to the
troops in forms of materiel).
From that perspective, I believe McArthur was the best at playing the "get me the
resources" game in the US army, but that was likely because FDR saw him as a real threat if
McArthur decided to run for a president. There were rumours at the time that FDR struck a
deal with McArthur that he (McA) wouldn't run against FDR and in return he would be given
resources and a relatively free hand to fullfill his "I shall return".
Thanks for that, despite my interest in the period, I haven't read up much on the US
perspective of the politics and military in China. Stillwell certainly had a very low opinion
of the British high brass, with pretty good reason and that coloured a lot of his decision
making. I suspect that like many military men, he was good at tactics but lousy at strategy.
Chennault (sorry for the bad spelling above) was a terrible choice in so many ways for a
mission like that. The entire land war in Asia was a mess of incompetence, cowardice and
corruption from the point of view of the Allies, Mao was lucky in his enemies.
I think you could also argue that had Japan not taken the bait laid out by FDR
(admittedly, the fuel embargo was probably justified on the basis of the massacres the
Japanese were busy carrying out), then they could well have won a land war in Asia,
especially as they had learned the hard way not to challenge the Soviets.
Chennault was a prima-donna with way overblown idea of himself, fuelled by the press
(what's new?).
Stillwell was actually pretty good logistician (as was many of the US generals TBH), his
real problem was that he was xenophobe IMO (it was very clear with British, he was massively
anglophobic), but he never really cared to understand anyone else except for the US (and US
troops). I believe that when he was given Okinawa command later on (with US troops), he
performed pretty well.
The history of the WW2 generalship is really fascinating, as while there was a lot of
politicking and infighting in Red Army (the massive RA casualties in battle of Berlin are a
direct consequences of his rivalry with Konev and Staling egging both of them to be "the
conquror of Berlin"), and with Whermacht (worse llater on when being a Hitler yes-man was
more and more important than any military competence), the UK and US armies were really
almost non-functional. Monty for the UK was really a large PR machine (he was handing out his
signed photos to the press), and while he was a good trainer, he was terrible at both tactics
(he hated tanks, which he equated with cavalry) and strategy. His most famous victory at
El-Alamein was actually prepared by Auchinleck and Monty's plan (feint in the south) didn't
work, so he went to brute force, and failed to use the breakthrough. He was famously
cautious, except for Market Garden, which was his idea..
US army had its (very large) share of primadonnas – most people know about Patton,
McArthur etc, but say Mark W. Clark was referred by his soldiers as Marcus Aurelius Clarkus,
because he insisted of all photos taken of him to take his "imperial nose", and got obsessed
with taking Rome for the headlines.
When you read some of the details of those things, you sort of wonder how the hell Allies
could have managed to win, when as often as not the unit next door was seen as much of an
enemy as the Germans by their commanders.
Had to go digging into Wikipedia but wasn't Chennault's second wife, Anna Chennault
– born Chan Sheng Mai – a force to be reckoned with herself in American politics
for decades? I remembered that she had a role in spiking the peace talks for Vietnam so that
Richard Nixon could win the Presidency and Wikipedia conformed it-
[McCarthyism is] another great moment of hysteria. I'm getting way ahead of myself here,
but I feel often like we're living through some version of that again today, you know, but
we'll talk about that later.
I kind of wish Frank had decided to go there, because I think there's a lot of mileage in
that. (Though I can't blame him for ultimately declining to.) If we see mid-twentieth-century
anti-communism's purpose as providing a means to purge a very broad swathe of the left via
guilt by association and innuendo, rather than being primarily aimed at the small number of
actually existing communists, then the current ways in which moral "hysteria" around identity
is being instrumentalised by antileft liberals and centrists seem very similar. In the UK,
the AS smear is being used extremely effectively to drive off what remains of the formerly
resurgent economic left from Labour. What Frank Furedi calls the "movement without a name"
currently sweeping through Anglosphere institutions seems likely to have a similar effect:
driving out or silencing economic leftists who are unwilling to publicly join in narrowly
"centring" Left priorities on identity issues, rather than class or "universal concrete
benefits."
What we have to keep stressing is that people like RLB aren't the "collateral damage" of
these forms of reaction and counter-revolution occasionally overreaching; they're the actual
primary targets.
I was shocked by Frank's total suppression of The Kingfish from his discussion of US
populism in the 1930's. The plutocratic contumely against Huey Long was even worse than
against FDR, and it continues unabated to this day amongst our FDR-admiring Newdealer
Liberalists. No "great writer" ever perpetrated an "All The King's Men" to slander FDR, but
the Lone Nut assassination in 1935, which was indispensable to Roosevelt's 1936 reelection,
has never received the critical exposure that befell its historical successors (JFK, RFK,
Malcolm, MLK). Only slightly less shocking was Frank's treatment of Henry Wallace, who was
chosen by FDR as his war VP in 1940, after "Dr. New Deal" had been proclaimed dead and
replaced by "Dr. Win The War"; and was dumped by FDR (not by some agentless "they") for the
candidate of the racist Pendergast Machine (heir of the Border Ruffians well known to Frank's
Kansas).
Party leaders, such as James F. Byrnes, strongly opposed his renomination. They regarded
Wallace as being too far to the left, too "progressive" and too friendly to labor to be
next in line for the Presidency.
Outgoing Democratic National Committee chairman Frank C. Walker, incoming chairman
Robert E. Hannegan, party treasurer Edwin W. Pauley, strategist Edward J. Flynn, Chicago
Mayor Edward Joseph Kelly and lobbyist George E. Allen all wanted to keep Wallace off the
ticket.
Their group was deemed by Allen as "The Conspiracy of the Pure in Heart."
They privately told Roosevelt that they would fight Wallace's renomination, and they
proposed Missouri Senator Harry S. Truman as FDR's new running mate.
I'm not sure how seriously one should take Citizen Kane as a social critique. Pauline Kael
called it a "shallow masterpiece" and perhaps that's why our less than deepthink president
likes it–because it's one of the most entertaining movies ever made and, yes, about a
larger than life figure who likes to see his name in big letters.
The more interesting question is why Trump–a completely different character than
FDR–generates the same kind of hysteria among the elites. Clearly even faux populism is
seen as a huge threat that must be strangled in the crib. And it isn't just the elites as the
left in general doesn't seem to think much of those "bitter clinger" rural white people.
Perhaps we as a society should spend a lot less time judging each other and more time devoted
to practical solutions–Roosevelt's true, rather non ideological legacy.
That was an interesting bit. Also interesting that the elites in both parties attack T in
the same way earlier elites attacked earlier populists – russia and Putin being the
modern standin for 'the devil'. ;) One interesting thing Enjeti on Rising said yesterday is
that T numbers among the working class – white, latino, black – are rising as a
proportion of the GOP voters, and that the only group pushing up Bidens numbers are middle
and upper middle class suburban voters. I haven't seen the polls, except Biden has a problem
with latino voters.
I never thought about the Citizen Kane comparison but it seems apt. T may be a demagogue.
But he did pull out the TPP and TPIP treaty negotiations, even as he gives the elites every
tax break and bailout money they ask for. But pulling out of the elites cherished trade deals
was beyond the pale, and they will not forgive him no matter how much else he gives them.
(Killing the Post Office or SS will destroy his support among the working class, imo.)
An aside: Huey Long was called a demagogue by the elites, too. Maybe that's why Frank
didn't cover him.
In today's second segment with Thomas Frank about his new book The People, No Paul Jay
pondered why rural Americans sidle up to the likes of Trump, or Liberace, or Elvis (or
professional wrestling) and came up with no explanation that, as Thomas Frank said, could be
provided in "one minute". Here is a thought: cultural conservatives (i.e., "rural Americans")
tend toward the myth, the narrative, fantasy. Trump, Liberace, Elvis, professional wrestling,
religion, military might, American Exceptionalism, freedom, the American Dream, Manifest
Destiny, MAGA. Sometimes even conspiracy theory (Alex Jones). All part of the peddled myth.
On the other hand, the "left" is not so susceptible to the myth and does a better job of
sorting bullshit from the truth. Thus they understand that Trump – and lots else about
America – is a con or, put more mildly, part of the national narrative, the myth
offered by powerful elite storytellers that is used to bind us together.
On the other hand, the "left" is not so susceptible to the myth and does a better job
of sorting bullshit from the truth.
Yes. It's too bad so many on the left talk down to rural Americans, people in flyover, and
consider them write-offs instead of people willing to engage.
The nat Dems ignore flyover even as state Dem parties beg for resources. There used to be
many Dems elected to Congress from flyover – mostly from the populist tradition.
Starting at least 25 years ago the Dem party decided to ignore midwestern Dems. imo. In the
90's even my red state sent Dems to Congress. People in my state didn't suddently swing hard
right, the Dem estab stopped caring about winning state and nat elections in flyover. Maybe
we didn't have enough mega-rich industries with lots of money to feed the nat. Dem
appetite.
Funny, plenty of conservatives think similar things about the Left (at least the non-Woke
folks): lots to agree on when it comes to diagnosing the problems, and many enemies in
common, but dangerously naive (susceptible to myth) when it comes to solving them, especially
using government power.
'Cultural conservatives' in my experience tend to be primarily people of faith who live by
moral codes. Typically they also think life would be better if everyone followed those codes.
Some may be hypocrites, but that's not a given. (And yes, I get that many left progressives
are also people of faith)
I think the flag waving Nascar American Dream types you're describing are more
libertarians, who idealize self-reliance and free will. They might also profess faith, but
they don't really want the preacher all up in their business any more than the gubmint. They
typically don't spend much time thinking about what other folks ought to do, other than take
care of their own business and leave them alone.
Ford, General Motors and scores of other companies sure had a keen eye for foreign
investments, didn't they? /s
Frank covers more history, threads and intriguing rabbit holes than the typical past
student was likely to encounter, unless really motivated toward much independent research to
find those somewhat hidden sources. Now, eightyish years after the fact, some of the
information is leaking out more widely.
Does anybody know if Thomas Frank mentions the 1934 Business Plot, aka The White House
Putsch in his new book? I hope that he does as it would not be complete account of these
times without mention of that little episode to show the lengths the opposition was willing
to go.
Of course they do. FDR was the quintessential machine politician and worked to STOP the
New Deal by (and stop me if you've heard this one before) using the conservative wing of the
party as an institutional monkey wrench. There is a whole chapter dispelling the
beatification of FDR in Walter Karp's Indspensable Enemies: The Politics of
Misrule in America , walking through the handbrakes he, unforced, placed on the New
Deal. Whatever bourgeios hagiographies Frank is reading, he needs to pull his head out of his
"master narrative" and understand how power works.
It's clear that ruling classes are, every single one, irresponsible, malicious,
mendacious, and downright deadly. Isn't it time we reconsider whether we shouldn't eliminate
the entire line of business and replace them with citizen democracy rather than bourgeois
democracy? I believe so.
(A little add-on note: freedom and liberty are diametric opposites. Freedom is the
condition of not being bossed. Liberty is the ability to boss others. Note carefully how
these have been propagandistically conflated in neoliberal discourse.)
Nancy Pelosi And Liz Cheney Unite Against Putting America First
Ending wars is the one truly heretical act in Washington. WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 21: U.S.
Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) speaks during a news conference with House Minority Leader Kevin
McCarthy (R-CA) and other Republican members of the House of Representatives at the Capitol on
July 21, 2020 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
After President Trump stated his desire to withdraw troops from Afghanistan, Germany and
South Korea, the bipartisan war party sprang into action.
Veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress approved a defense appropriations bill that
authorizes $740 billion in military spending. Along with all the other dubious and downright
awful provisions, the House's version of the bill has included a measure designed to thwart the
president from bringing troops home. House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney (R-WY) on an
amendment putting several conditions on the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan,
requiring the White House to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn't
jeopardize counterterrorism or national security.
This episode captures why the Washington establishment loathes President Trump. Hint: it has
nothing to do with the smears accusing him of racism or Russian sympathies.
Trump is the only president to challenge the internationalist interventionist orthodoxy
that's ruled Washington unquestioned for the last 70 years.
Let's go back to 1949, to the creation of NATO and the initial deployment of troops to
Europe.
Joe Stalin and world communism was on the march, we were told. Russia controlled half of
Europe and would take the rest -- along with Korea -- unless we acted. President Truman
demanded American boys be ready to fight Russia in Germany, Japan, Greece, Turkey, Korea,
wherever.
00:05 / 00:59 00:00 Next Video × Next Video
J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019
Cancel Autoplay is paused
But even in that climate of crisis, support for permanent war was not unanimous.
Senator William "Wild Bill" Langer (R-North Dakota), one of the eleven Republicans in
opposition (along with just two Democrats) called NATO "a barren military alliance directed to
plunge us deeply into the economic, military and political affairs of the other nations of
Europe."
We're still plunging new depths, ever seeking new frontiers and new missions for the barren
alliance.
When President Trump declared before the immobile faces of
Mt. Rushmore , "A nation must care for its own citizens first. We must take care of America
first," he was channeling that original America Firster, Joe Kennedy.
The man who would father three senators and a president offered this advice in 1950 (none of
his children took it): America needs "to get out of Korea" and "apply the same principle to
Europe." We must "conserve American lives for American ends, not waste them in the freezing
hills of Korea or the battle-scarred plains of Western Germany."
Or in the mountains of Afghanistan or the deserts of the Middle East.
When you hear President Trump ask NATO countries to up their defense spending, compare that
to the words of Joe Kennedy: "We cannot sacrifice ourselves to save those who do not wish to
save themselves."
Nancy Pelosi and her ilk call Trump a Russian asset for daring to put the interests of this
country before empire. Nothing new there. Today's Russia-baiters are cut from the same cloth as
an earlier generation of liberals.
In 1951, The Nation magazine accused "Herbert Hoover and a good portion of the
Republican Party" of being captured by Moscow -- that portion opposed to NATO, because Hoover
doubted the effectiveness of deploying ground troops against the communist nations.
The New Republic seconded the motion: refusing to commit American troops to NATO "may
lead Stalin to attack Western Europe" and keep advancing until his minions "would bring out in
triumph the first Communist edition of the Chicago Tribune ." Mitt Romney and his fellow
impeachment travelers remain convinced we must
fight the Russians over there so we don't have to fight them over here!
Back then, the bipartisan war party insisted the president could send troops abroad without
asking Congress. Now when President Trump wants to bring them home, Congress claims it has the
authority to stop him. Whatever it takes to keep the war machine properly greased.
Until Trump, George McGovern was the only candidate of a major party to call for drawing
down troops in Europe and Korea. The sentiment in McGovern's 1972 acceptance speech is pure
America First: "This is also the time to turn away from excessive preoccupation overseas to
rebuilding our own nation."
The establishment has hated McGovern ever since for the same reason they hate President
Trump.
The America First program would dismantle the imperial project that brought us NATO and has
kept us on permanent war footing until today.
The foreign policy sachems built a "post-war rules based international order" on the premise
the United States can and must remake the world. They stationed our troops abroad and launched
wars with no end. They merged the American economy with that of the rest of the world,
destroying America's industries, high wage scales and standard of living in the process. They
constructed a permanent national security state with unchecked powers to pursue anyone
including the president.
The precious "rules based international order" is empire by another name. To those who
support it -- Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative, neoconservative, academics,
lobbyists and pundits -- it is the One True Faith.
Anyone who opposes it is anathema. Even the elected President of the United States.
Yup, US intentions are always good and pure and if it fails, that was a mistake. While
Daniel Larison gives a nice review of the book "The Liberal Order That Never Was", he only
read the introduction. The actual book is a searing dismantling of all the pompous BS
Liberalism coming for decades from Washington DC, a high intellectual feat, superbly
argued, which should become a reference for anyone interested in these things. Personally I
thank the author, Mr. Porter, for providing unbeatable arguments for any future debate on
the matter.
As for the pax britannica, same stickThe War Nerd has some strong words to say about the
Brits and their excellent Victorian PR machine that was completely silent on all the crimes
against humanity committed by the Brits (here I have to recognize their actions against
slavery).
As for Iran, it had a counter-revolution after the nationalist government lead by
Mossadegh was overturned and replaced by the US installed Shah. But since 1978 or so, the
second uprising made Iran a Republic, Islamic first, nationalist second, and semi-socialist
third. They do not need Oligarchic inspired counter-revolutions, to subjugate their economy
and population to the Wall Street inspired "liberal order", brought by bombs,
assassinations, and lies, all with the goal of looting the country's resources.
And what are you drinking mate? "US selflessly assumed"? Or you are high? Or you are a
hypocrite? I don't have another explanation.
Or we could just have a multi-polar balance of power where each nation deals with its
own spheres of influence. Its not our role to bring freedom everywhere (I reject the idea
that US intervention brings peace in any way) to the world, if the world wishes to have
freedom they should forge it for themselves. Doing so usually leaves the countries we bring
"freedom" to worse off, with its populace having no greater amount of freedom than before
hand. The role of our foreign policy should be defense of the nation and restrained use of
any military forces. If we want to advocate for peace on the world we can do it through
diplomatic channels and not through invading and bombing seven countries while arming
groups we consider to be "moderate".
Putting America First should mean restoring access to objective truth, and restoring
freedom of speech and thought. [We cannot continue in a situation where marxist zealots
control all our institutions and all our information.]
The American Left rant endlessly about the evil white supremacists. Yet they themselves
seem to actually believe in white supremacy.
Europeans have been returning to normal with businesses, schools, bars and restaurants
re-opening and operating in the normal way.
The Left want us to believe that the Europeans are a superior race. "We cannot return to
normal in America because the US is really like another planet - with a weak, soft, sickly
sub-species of humans."
For The American Left, the return to normal life in Europe is actually a kind of hate crime
- a spiteful flaunting of the privilege and superiority of ethnic Europeans. White
supremacy has given Europeans better immune systems and better general health. [When in
doubt, blame Christopher Columbus?]
How are America's marxist ruling class able to carry on this information-control operation
- to maintain the climate of fear by suppressing news from Europe and the rest of the
outside world??
It's very very scary - much scarier than any virus.
And their propaganda is costing tens of thousands of lives - and not just from
psychological and addiction problems caused by economic and social breakdown.
They have managed to convince a lot of people that hydroxychloroquine is not only
ineffective but actually dangerous!! This is a drug that has been in widespread use for
seven decades!!! It is being used all over the place - greatly depressing hospitalisation
and death rates when used in the early stages of the virus. The Left's hysterical attacks
against this therapy (Apparently it is a counter-revolutionary drug - not approved by The
Party.), are not just scary, they are a crime against humanity.
The middle eastern war in Afghanistan & our soldiers: After millions or billions of
American tax dollars spent to help build up this poor nation what has changed? NADA, too
many American soldiers and other military personal have died for what, zero changes in a
place where Islam rules supreme and nothing has changed from the 14th century way of life.
Way past time to get out and let these followers of Islam kill each other over their ideals
on how they interpret the Koran.( Shia verse Shite Muslim wage war on each other due to
different interpretations of the Koran)
The President is picking the wrong fight. He should veto the NDAA not over
Confederate-named bases but over these pro-interventionist amendments, If congress wants to
override him, let them defend such measures. Ending foreign wars was what helped elect
Ptes. Trump in 2016 & it could go a long way toward re-electing him this fall.
Mr. Ellis: House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney (R-WY) on an amendment putting several
conditions on the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, requiring the White House
to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn't jeopardize counterterrorism
or national security.
And that means they're not putting America First? According to the article cited, "But
military officials have insisted any further drawdown will be based on conditions on the
ground that are not yet met, even as Trump pushes for a speedy withdrawal." Trump has shown
his incompetence over a broad swath of policies. Why shouldn't the House and if they had
the stomach for it, the Senate, ask him to justify what he's doing. Is he doing what's best
for America or trying to win an election? If his administration can't justify what they're
doing, it's simply another sign of their incompetence.
House Democrats worked with Liz Cheney (R-WY) on an amendment putting several
conditions on the administration's withdrawal from Afghanistan, requiring the White House
to certify at several stages that further reductions wouldn't jeopardize counterterrorism
or national security.
Well isn't that special?
Republican and Democrat wings of the war party conspiring amongst themselves to
willingly sacrifice American sons/daughters up on the bloody altar of forever war in
support of their stillborn/bankrupt ideologies.
These worthless poser-swine in congress are a national disgrace.
It would be nice if one of the poser-swine in congress could raise their snout long
enough to articulate what our national security interests in Afghanistan are (hint: there
are no US national security interests at stake in Afghanistan).
In order to prevent the unwarranted accumulation of power/influence in the pigsty known
as Washington DC Americans need to demand fixed term limits for congressional poser-swine
wallowing snout to snout at the public trough. One term of 6 years for senators (appointed
by state legislatures - no general election - old fashioned hockey) and three terms of 2
years for representatives via general election.
Disgraceful poser-swine such as Cheney and Pelosi (etal) are working for themselves and
their benefactors narrow interests - nation be damned.
"... The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it, even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control, contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global strike missions, continue to spread across the globe. ..."
"... To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire, becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure. ..."
"... Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma. But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills us. In other words, it's truly time to defund that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless war. ..."
...as Martin Luther King, Jr., pointed
out in 1967 during the Vietnam War, the United States remains the world's greatest
purveyor of violence -- and nothing in this century, the one he didn't live to see, has
faintly proved him wrong. Considered another way, Washington should be classified as the
planet's most committed arsonist, regularly setting or fanning the flames of fires globally
from Libya to Iraq, Somalia to Afghanistan, Syria to -- dare I say it -- in some quite
imaginable future Iran, even as our leaders invariably boast of having the world's greatest
firefighters (also known as
the U.S. military ).
Scenarios of perpetual war haunt my thoughts. For a healthy democracy, there should be few
things more unthinkable than never-ending conflict, that steady drip-drip of death and
destruction that drives
militarism , reinforces authoritarianism, and facilitates disaster capitalism .
In 1795, James Madison
warned Americans that war of that sort would presage the slow death of freedom and
representative government. His prediction seems all too relevant in a world in which, year
after year, this country continues to engage in needless wars that have nothing to do with
national defense.
You Wage War Long, You Wage It Wrong
U.S. helicopters on the deck of the aircraft carrier USS Midway (CV-41) during the
evacuation of Saigon, April 1975. (DanMS, Wikimedia Commons)
To cite one example of needless war from the last century, consider America's horrendous
years of fighting in Vietnam and a critical lesson drawn firsthand from that conflict by
reporter Jonathan Schell. "In Vietnam," he noted , "I learned about the capacity of the
human mind to build a model of experience that screens out even very dramatic and obvious
realities." As a young journalist covering the war, Schell saw that the U.S. was losing, even
as its military was destroying startlingly large areas of South Vietnam in the name of saving
it from communism. Yet America's leaders, the " best and brightest "
of the era, almost to a man refused to see that all of what passed for realism in their world,
when it came to that war, was nothing short of a first-class lie.
Why? Because believing is seeing and they desperately wanted to believe that they were the
good guys, as well as the most powerful guys on the planet. America was winning, it practically
went without saying, because it had to be. They were infected by their own version of an
all-American victory culture ,
blinded by a sense of this country's obvious destiny: to be the most exceptional and
exceptionally triumphant nation on this planet.
As it happened, it was far more difficult for grunts on the ground to deny the reality of
what was happening -- that they were fighting and dying in a senseless war. As a result,
especially after the shock of the enemy's Tet Offensive early in 1968, escalating protests
within the military (and among veterans at home) together with massive antiwar demonstrations
finally helped put the brakes on that war. Not before, however, more than 58,000 American
troops died, along with
millions of Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians.
In the end, the war in Indochina was arguably too costly, messy, and futile to continue. But
never underestimate the
military-industrial complex , especially when it comes to editing or denying reality, while
being eternally over-funded for that very reality. It's a trait the complex has shared with
politicians of both parties. Don't forget, for instance, the way President Ronald Reagan
reedited that disastrous conflict into a "
noble cause " in the 1980s. And give him credit! That was no small thing to sell to an
American public that had already lived through such a war. By the way, tell me something about
that Reaganesque moment doesn't sound vaguely familiar almost four decades later when our very
own "
wartime president " long ago
declared victory in the "war" on Covid-19, even as the death toll from that virus
approaches 150,000 in the homeland.
President Donald Trump during briefing on Covid-19 testing capacity May 11, 2020. (White
House, Shealah Craighead)
In the meantime, the military-industrial complex has mastered the long con of the
no-win forever war in a genuinely impressive fashion. Consider the war in Afghanistan. In
2021 it will enter its third decade without an end in sight. Even when President Donald Trump
makes noises
about withdrawing troops from that country, Congress approves an amendment to another massive,
record-setting military budget with broad
bipartisan support that effectively obstructs any efforts to do so (while the Pentagon
continues to bargain Trump down on the
subject).
The Vietnam War, which was destroying the U.S. military, finally ended in an ignominious
withdrawal. Almost two decades later, after the 2001 invasion, the war in Afghanistan can now
be -- the dream of the Vietnam era -- fought in a "limited" fashion, at least from the point of
view of Congress, the Pentagon, and most Americans (who ignore it), even if not the Afghans.
The number of American troops being killed is, at this point, acceptably
low , almost imperceptible in fact (even if not to Americans who have lost loved ones over
there).
More and more, the U.S. military is relying on air power ,
unmanned drones, mercenaries, local militias, paramilitaries, and private contractors.
Minimizing American casualties is an effective way of minimizing negative media coverage here;
so, too, are efforts by the Trump administration to classify nearly everything related to that
war while
denying or downplaying " collateral
damage " -- that is, dead civilians -- from it.
Their efforts boil down to a harsh truth: America just plain
lies about its forever wars, so that it can keep on killing in lands far from home.
When we as Americans refuse to take in the destruction we cause, we come to passively accept
the belief system of the ruling class that what's still bizarrely called "defense" is a "must
have" and that we collectively must spend
significantly more than a trillion dollars a year on the Pentagon, the Department of
Homeland Security, and a sprawling network of intelligence agencies, all justified as necessary
defenders of America's freedom. Rarely does the public put much thought into the dangers
inherent in a sprawling "defense" network that increasingly invades and dominates our
lives.
Unmanned MQ-9 Reaper taxis after a mission in Afghanistan, Oct. 1, 2007. (Wikimedia)
Meanwhile, it's clear that low-cost
wars , at least in terms of U.S. troops killed and wounded in action, can essentially be
prolonged indefinitely, even when they never result in anything faintly like victory or fulfill
any faintly useful American goal. The Afghan War remains the case in point. "Progress" is a
concept that only ever fits
the enemy -- the Taliban continues to gain ground -- yet, in these years, figures like
retired general and former CIA Director David Petraeus have continued to call for a "
generational
" commitment of troops and resources there, akin to U.S. support for South Korea.
Who says the Pentagon leadership learned nothing from Vietnam? They learned how to wage
open-ended wars basically forever, which has proved useful indeed when it comes to justifying
and sustaining
epic military budgets and the political authority that goes with them. But here's the
thing: in a democracy, if you wage war long, you wage it wrong. Athens and the historian
Thucydides learned this the hard way in the struggle against Sparta more than two millennia
ago. Why do we insist on forgetting such an obvious lesson?
'We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us'
Sept. 11, 2001: Firefighters battling fire in portion of the Pentagon damaged by attack.
(U.S. Navy/Bob Houlihan)
World War II was arguably the last war Americans truly had to fight. My Uncle Freddie was in
the Army and stationed at Pearl Harbor when it was attacked on Dec. 7, 1941. The country then
came together and won a global conflict (with lots of help) in 44 months, emerging as the
planetary superpower to boot. Now, that superpower is very much on the wane, as Trump
recognized in running successfully as a
declinist candidate for president in 2016. (Make America Great Again !) And yet,
though he ran against this country's forever wars and is now president, we're approaching the
third decade of a war on terror that has yielded little, spread radical Islamist terror outfits
across an expanse of the planet, and still seemingly has no end.
"Great nations do not fight endless wars," Trump
himself claimed only last year. Yet that's exactly what this country has been doing,
regardless of which party ruled the roost in Washington. And here's where, to give him credit,
Trump actually had a certain insight. America is no longer great precisely because of the
endless wars we wage and all the largely hidden but associated costs that go with them,
including the recently much publicized
militarization of the police here at home. Yet, in promising to make America great again,
President Trump has
failed to end those wars, even as he's fed the military-industrial complex with even
greater piles of cash.
There's a twisted logic to all this. As the leading purveyor of violence and terror, with
its leaders committed to fighting Islamist terrorism across the planet until the phenomenon is
vanquished, the U.S. inevitably becomes its own opponent, conducting a perpetual war on itself.
Of course, in the process, Afghans, Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Somalis, and Yemenis, among other
peoples on this embattled planet of ours, pay big time, but Americans pay, too. (Have you even
noticed that high-speed railroad that's unbuilt
, that dam in increasing
disrepair , those bridges that need fixing, while money continues to
pour into the national security state?) As the cartoon possum Pogo once so classically
said , "We
have met the enemy and he is us."
Early in the Iraq War, General Petraeus asked a question that
was relevant indeed: "Tell me how this [war] ends." The answer, obvious to so many who had
protested in the global streets
over the invasion to come in 2003, was "not well." Today, another answer should be obvious:
never, if the Pentagon and America's political and national security elite have anything to do
with it. In thermodynamics class, I learned that a perpetual motion machine is impossible to
create due to entropy. The Pentagon never took that in and has instead been hard at work
proving that a perpetual military machine is possible until, that is, the empire it feeds off
of collapses and takes us with it.
America's Military Complex as a Cytokine Storm
U.S. Air Force basic military graduation on April 16, 2020, on Joint Base San
Antonio-Lackland, Texas. (U.S. Air Force, Johnny Saldivar)
In the era of Covid-19, as cases and deaths from the pandemic continue to soar in America, it's astonishing that
military spending is also soaring to record
levels despite a medical emergency and a major recession.
The reality is that, in the summer of 2020, America faces two deadly viruses. The first
is Covid-19. With hard work and some luck, scientists may be able to mass-produce an effective
vaccine for it, perhaps by as early as
next spring . In the meantime, scientists do have a sense of how to control it, contain it,
even neutralize it, as countries from South Korea and New Zealand to Denmark have shown, even
if some Americans, encouraged by our president, insist on throwing all caution to the winds in
the name of living free. The second virus, however, could prove even more difficult to control,
contain, and neutralize: forever war, a pandemic that U.S. military forces, with their global
strike missions, continue to spread across the globe.
Sadly, it's a reasonable bet that in the long run, even with Trump as president, America has
a better chance of defeating Covid-19 than the virus of forever war. At least, the first is
generally seen as a serious threat (even
if not by a president blind to anything but his chances for reelection); the second is,
however, still largely seen as evidence of our strength and exceptionalism. Indeed, Americans
tend to imagine "our" military not as a dangerous virus but as a set of benevolent antibodies,
defending us from global evildoers.
When it comes to America's many wars, perhaps there's something to be learned from the way
certain people's immune systems respond to Covid-19. In some cases, the virus sparks an
exaggerated immune response that drives the body into a severe inflammatory state known as a
cytokine storm . That "storm" can lead to multiple organ failure followed by death, yet it
occurs in the cause of defending the body from a viral attack.
In a similar fashion, America's exaggerated response to 19 hijackers on 9/11 and then to
perceived threats around the globe, especially the nebulous threat of terror, has led to an
analogous (if little noticed) cytokine storm in the American system. Military (and
militarized police ) antibodies have been sapping our resources, inflaming our body
politic, and slowly strangling the vital organs of democracy. Left unchecked, this "storm" of
inflammatory militarism
will be the death of democracy in America.
To put this country right, what's needed is not only an effective vaccine for Covid-19 but a
way to control the "antibodies" produced by America's forever wars abroad and, as the years
have gone by, at home -- and the ways they've attacked and inflamed the collective U.S.
political, social, and economic body. Only when we find ways to vaccinate ourselves against the
destructive violence of those wars, whether on foreign streets or our own, can we begin to heal
as a democratic society.
To survive, the human body needs a healthy immune system, so when it goes haywire,
becomes wildly inflamed, and ends up attacking and degrading our vital organs, we're in trouble
deep. It's a reasonable guess that, in analogous terms, American democracy is already on a
ventilator and beginning to feel the effects of multiple organ failure.
Unlike a human patient, doctors can't put our democracy into a medically induced coma.
But collectively we should be working to suppress our overactive immune system before it kills
us. In other words, it's truly time to defund
that military machine of ours, as well as the militarized version of the police, and rethink
how actual threats can be neutralized without turning every response into an endless
war.
So many years later, it's time to think the unthinkable. For the U.S. government that means
-- gasp! -- peace. Such a peace would start with imperial retrenchment (bring our troops
home!), much reduced military (and police) budgets, and complete
withdrawal from Afghanistan and any other place associated with that "generational" war on
terror. The alternative is a cytokine storm that will, in the end, tear us apart from
within.
A retired lieutenant colonel (USAF) and professor of history, William J. Astore is
a
TomDispatch regular. His personal blog is " Bracing Views ."
To understand what enables all the absurdity noted, try identifying what made short shrift
of Tulsi Gabbard’s run for the democrat nomination. She clearly was raising the wrong
questions about war, and some one like Biden and Hillary were providing the narratives that
enable what is happening to continue.
evelync , July 27, 2020 at 17:26
Why do we live a different public from private life?
The public – American Dream; American Exceptionalism;
The private – CIA Director approved in spite of overseeing torture; secretive paranoid
cold warriors approved to run CIA. Coups/Wars
– The secretive State Dept and Intelligence agencies adopt policies that serve short
term financial interests of MICIMATT
NOT the long term public interest.
Trump was elected in part because people are sick of endless regime change wars and
reckless financial deregulation and unfair trade.
He made promises (which he lied about) because in spite of his glaring flaws he’s a
clever manipulator of peoples’ feelings and he knows what people worry about.
Aaron , July 27, 2020 at 13:48
The war on terror is an Israeli construct, it’s a perpetual war, an impossible kind
of war for our military to win in any conventional sense, whereby we could then pack up and
go home, which is exactly the way the Zionists want it to be played out. The goal has been to
Balkanize all of the countries that Israel feels threatened by and break them apart into
ethnic statelets, and thereby hugely weakening their overall power.
Not unlike what happened
to the former Yugoslavia. Remember that after the war in Afghanistan started, a person in the
Pentagon told Wesley Clark that we were going to war in 7 Middle East countries, and he said
he asked the person “Why?” and they didn’t give him an answer other than
that was the plan.
Sure, there are always the war profiteers and all that, but the particular
mission that our military is serving in that overall region is a Zionist plan.
The American
people have bought this for the most part because the Zionist mainstream media has
successfully conflated the goals of the state of Israel with our own goals, and that we must
equate any and all things Israeli with “The West”, and so whatever antipathy is
directed at them, we are to construe that they are attacking America also. And not only have
many thousands of American troops been killed, tens of thousands injured, the p.t.s.d. and
suicides will go on, as Petraeus seems to imply, for generations. This is a like a terrible,
persistent sickness.
Will there be a modern day Alexander to cut this Gordian Knot? The
financial, emotional, spiritual, moral toll of this forever war is indeed killing our
democracy.
The more money a member of Congress accepts from the defense industry, the higher the
probability that they'll vote how the defense industry wants them to vote. (So probably what
you expected.)
... ... ...
If you order the members of Congress based on the amount each of them accepted from the
defense sector (2020 cycle) with their respective votes then break your list down (roughly)
into fourths, you'll get something that looks like this:
Amount member accepts from
defense
industry Likelihood that member lets us down Less than $3,000 70% $3,000-$9,999 77%
$10,000-$29,999 84% More than $30,000 More than 98% Notes
41 House Democrats didn't let us down (in this case)
These 41 received (on average) $7,005.63 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
179 House Democrats did let us down
These 179 received (on average) $30,075.85 in campaign contributions from the defense
industry so far in this election cycle
Adam Smith , Democratic Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has received
$376,650.00 in campaign contributions from the defense industry so far in this election
cycle. (He also named the NDAA after his Republican counterpart.)
By a vote of 324-93 ,
the House of Representatives soundly defeated an
amendment to reduce Pentagon authorized spending levels by 10%. The amendment does not
specify what to cut, only that Congress make across-the-board reductions. The amendment to
the 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was offered by Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI). No
Republicans voted for the amendment. Libertarian Justin Amash supported the amendment.
Earlier, the House defeated an amendment to stop the Pentagon's submission of an unfunded
priorities list. Each year, after the Pentagon's budget request is submitted to Congress, the
military services send a separate "wish list," termed "unfunded priorities." This list
includes requests for programs that the military would like Congress to fund, in case they
decide to add more money to the Pentagon's proposed budget.
This article was written while observing the voting on CSPAN. The House Clerk has not
yet posted the roll-call vote. Additional information will be added to the article when
available.
divideand conquer 1. To gain or maintain power by generating tension among others, especially those less powerful,
so that they cannot unite in opposition.
Notable quotes:
"... In its most general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal, but I'm hoping I can say something new. ..."
"... The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies. As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy. ..."
"... Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity. ..."
"... If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members, who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump. ..."
I've been thinking about the various versions of and critiques of identity politics that are around at the moment.
In its most
general form, identity politics involves (i) a claim that a particular group is not being treated fairly and (ii) a claim that
members of that group should place political priority on the demand for fairer treatment. But "fairer" can mean lots of different
things. I'm trying to think about this using contrasts between the set of terms in the post title. A lot of this is unoriginal,
but I'm hoping I can say something new.
You missed one important line of critique -- identity politics as a dirty political strategy of soft neoliberals.
To be sure, race, gender, culture, and other aspects of social life have always been important to politics. But neoliberalism's
radical individualism has increasingly raised two interlocking problems. First, when taken to an extreme, social fracturing into
identity groups can be used to divide people and prevent the creation of a shared civic identity. Self-government requires uniting
through our commonalities and aspiring to achieve a shared future.
When individuals fall back onto clans, tribes, and us-versus-them identities, the political community gets fragmented. It becomes
harder for people to see each other as part of that same shared future.
Demagogues [more correctly neoliberals -- likbez] rely on this fracturing to inflame racial, nationalist, and religious antagonism,
which only further fuels the divisions within society. Neoliberalism's war on "society," by pushing toward the privatization and
marketization of everything, thus indirectly facilitates a retreat into tribalism that further undermines the preconditions for
a free and democratic society.
The second problem is that neoliberals on right and left sometimes use identity as a shield to protect neoliberal policies.
As one commentator has argued, "Without the bedrock of class politics, identity politics has become an agenda of inclusionary
neoliberalism in which individuals can be accommodated but addressing structural inequalities cannot." What this means is that
some neoliberals hold high the banner of inclusiveness on gender and race and thus claim to be progressive reformers, but they
then turn a blind eye to systemic changes in politics and the economy.
Critics argue that this is "neoliberal identity politics," and it gives its proponents the space to perpetuate the policies
of deregulation, privatization, liberalization, and austerity.
Of course, the result is to leave in place political and economic structures that harm the very groups that inclusionary neoliberals
claim to support. The foreign policy adventures of the neoconservatives and liberal internationalists haven't fared much better
than economic policy or cultural politics. The U.S. and its coalition partners have been bogged down in the war in Afghanistan
for 18 years and counting. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq is a liberal democracy, nor did the attempt to establish democracy in
Iraq lead to a domino effect that swept the Middle East and reformed its governments for the better. Instead, power in Iraq has
shifted from American occupiers to sectarian militias, to the Iraqi government, to Islamic State terrorists, and back to the Iraqi
government -- and more than 100,000 Iraqis are dead.
Or take the liberal internationalist 2011 intervention in Libya. The result was not a peaceful transition to stable democracy
but instead civil war and instability, with thousands dead as the country splintered and portions were overrun by terrorist groups.
On the grounds of democracy promotion, it is hard to say these interventions were a success. And for those motivated to expand
human rights around the world, it is hard to justify these wars as humanitarian victories -- on the civilian death count alone.
Indeed, the central anchoring assumptions of the American foreign policy establishment have been proven wrong. Foreign policymakers
largely assumed that all good things would go together -- democracy, markets, and human rights -- and so they thought opening
China to trade would inexorably lead to it becoming a liberal democracy. They were wrong. They thought Russia would become liberal
through swift democratization and privatization. They were wrong.
They thought globalization was inevitable and that ever-expanding trade liberalization was desirable even if the political
system never corrected for trade's winners and losers. They were wrong. These aren't minor mistakes. And to be clear, Donald Trump
had nothing to do with them. All of these failures were evident prior to the 2016 election.
If we assume that identity politics is, first and foremost, a dirty and shrewd political strategy developed by the Clinton wing
of the Democratic Party ("soft neoliberals") many things became much more clear. Along with Neo-McCarthyism it represents a mechanism to compensate for the loss of their primary voting block: trade union members,
who in 2016 "en mass" defected to Trump.
Initially Clinton calculation was that trade union voters has nowhere to go anyways, and it was correct for first decade or so
of his betrayal. But gradually trade union members and lower middle class started to leave Dems in droves (Demexit, compare with
Brexit) and that where identity politics was invented to compensate for this loss.
So in addition to issues that you mention we also need to view the role of identity politics as the political strategy of the
"soft neoliberals " directed at discrediting and the suppression of nationalism.
The resurgence of nationalism is the inevitable byproduct of the dominance of neoliberalism, resurgence which I think is capable
to bury neoliberalism as it lost popular support (which now is limited to financial oligarchy and high income professional groups,
such as we can find in corporate and military brass, (shrinking) IT sector, upper strata of academy, upper strata of medical professionals,
etc)
That means that the structure of the current system isn't just flawed which imply that most problems are relatively minor and
can be fixed by making some tweaks. It is unfixable, because the "Identity wars" reflect a deep moral contradictions within neoliberal
ideology. And they can't be solved within this framework.
"... 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.
"... 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. ..."
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.
Former Vice President Joe Biden has released
a video statement telling the American people that the
accusations he is now facing
of touching women in inappropriate ways without their consent is the product of changing "social norms", assuring everyone that
he will indeed be adjusting to those changes.
And thank goodness. For a minute there, I was worried Biden might cave under the pressure of a looming scandal and decline to
run for president on the grounds that it could cripple his campaign and leave America facing another four years of Donald Trump.
Here are nine good reasons why I hope Joe Biden runs for president, and why you should support him too:
1. It's his turn.
It's Biden's turn to be president. He's spent years playing second fiddle while other leading Democrats hogged all the limelight,
and that's not fair. He's been waiting very patiently. Come on.
2. Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
If Joe Biden secures the Democratic Party nomination for president, he would be the Most Qualified Candidate Ever to run for
office. His service as a US Senator and a Vice President has given him unparalleled experience priming him for the most powerful
elected office in the world. Everything Biden has done throughout his entire career proves that he'd make a great Commander-in-Chief.
3. He's closely associated with a popular Democratic president.
You think Biden, you think Obama. You think Obama, you think greatness. You can't spend that much time with a great Democratic
president without absorbing his greatness yourself. It's called osmosis.
4. You liked Obama, didn't you?
Biden was part of the Obama administration. Remember the Obama administration? It was magical, right? If you want more of that,
vote Biden.
5. But Trump!
Do you want Trump to win the next election? You know he'll shatter all our norms and literally end the world if he does, right?
You should be terrified of the possibility of Trump winning in 2020, and if you are, you should want him running against Joe Biden.
What's the alternative? Nominating some crazy unelectable socialist like Bernie Sanders? Might as well just hand Trump the victory
now, then. Anyone who wants to beat Trump must fall in line behind the Most Qualified Candidate Ever.
6. Iraq wasn't so bad.
Okay, maybe some of his past foreign policy positions look bad in hindsight, but come on. Pushing for the Iraq war was what
everyone was doing back in those days. It was all the rage. We all made it through, right? I mean, most of us?
7. This is happening whether you like it or not.
We're doing this. We're going to push Joe Biden through whether you like it or not, and we can do it the easy way or the hard
way. Just relax, take deep breaths, and think about a nice place far away from here. Don't struggle. This will be over before
you know it. We'll use plenty of lube.
8. Just vote for him.
Just vote for him, you insolent little shits. Who the fuck do you think you are, anyway? You think you're entitled to a bunch
of ponies and unicorns like healthcare and drinkable water? You only think that because you're a bunch of racist, sexist homophobes.
You will vote for who we tell you to or we'll spend the next four years calling you all Russian agents and screaming about Susan
Sarandon.
9. Nothing could possibly go wrong.
Honestly, what could possibly go wrong? It's not like the Most Qualified Candidate Ever could manage to lose an election to
some oafish reality TV star. Hell, Biden could beat Trump in his sleep. He could even skip campaigning in Michigan, Wisconsin
and Pennsylvania and still win by a landslide, because those states are in the bag. There's no way he could fail, barring some
unprecedented and completely unforeseeable freak occurrences from way out of left field that nobody could possibly have anticipated.
"... In recent years, U.S. troops were killed not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Syria, Kenya, Somalia, Yemen, and Niger. Few Americans could locate these countries on a map; fewer knew its soldiers fought there. Additionally, Pentagon pilots and proxies killed people in Libya, Pakistan, and elsewhere in West Africa without losing a single soldier. ..."
"... The campaigns in Somalia and Yemen best expose the absurd casualty inequity of modern American warfare. In the former, only a few U.S. service members have been killed in an 18-year intervention. Conversely, hundreds of thousands of Somalis died or were displaced as a direct or indirect result (an exacerbated famine , for example) of a largely U.S.-catalyzed war. In Yemen, just one American soldier died in combat, compared to more than 100,000 locals -- including 85,000 children starved to death -- in a terror campaign the Saudis couldn't wage without U.S. complicity . ..."
"... With unemployment sky-rocketing to Great Depression rates, and income inequality at Gilded Age levels , both holidays now "celebrate" egregious blood and treasure disparity. For example, sifting through the Department of Labor's statistics reveals that some 8,000 contractors have been killed in America's war zones. That outnumbers U.S. military fatalities. Since Washington has progressively privatized and outsourced its wars, perhaps Americans should also observe a Mercenary Memorial Day. ..."
"... Faced with unrecognizable brands of war, most people substitute nostalgia and myth. Grappling with war's reality has implications that are too disturbing. Far simpler and more satisfying is to commemorate long past sacrifices at Normandy and Iwo Jima, rather than more confounding losses in Niger and Iraq. The temptation persists even as the last World War II veterans pass; old notions of what combat is ..."
"... The United States has lost its ethical and strategic way. Riddled with a virus that has now killed more Americans than the Revolutionary, Mexican, Spanish, Indian, Philippine, Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq, and Afghan Wars combined , this nation requires serious soul-searching. Reimagining its bookended summer celebrations might be a good start; but it won't be easy. ..."
Pandemic or no, resilient Americans will celebrate Memorial Day together. Be it through Zoom
or spaced six feet apart from ten or less loved ones at backyard cookouts, folks will find a
way. In these peculiar gatherings, is it still considered cynical to wonder if people will
spare much actual thought for American soldiers still dying abroad -- or question the
utility of America's forever wars? Etiquette aside, we think it's obscene not to.
Just as the coronavirus has
exposed systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common conceptions of U.S.
warfare truly are -- raising core questions about the holiday devoted to its sacrifices. The
truth is that today's "
way of war " is so abstract, distant, and short on (at least American) casualties as to be
nearly invisible to the public. With little to
show for it, Washington still directs bloody global campaigns, killing thousands of locals.
America has no space on its calendar to memorialize these victims: even the
children among them.
"Just as the coronavirus
exposed much internal systemic rot, this moment also reveals how obsolete common
conceptions of U.S. warfare truly are."
Eighteen years ago, as a cadet and young marine officer, we celebrated the first post-9/11
Memorial Day -- both brimming with enthusiasm for the wars we knew lay ahead. In the
intervening decades, for
individual yet strikingly
similar reasons, we ultimately
chose paths of dissent. Since then, we'v
Rewriting history: Legacy media shriek Trump is 'bucking tradition'... for doing the same thing
they praised Obama for
FILE PHOTO. © REUTERS / Mike Segar 103 Follow RT on 
FILE PHOTO. © REUTERS / Brendan McDermid 77 20 Follow RT on 
Trump was a symptom of American decline that Biden is unlikely to reverse
Trump's reign has proved the US president is merely a figurehead. Does it really matter who
wins the vote?
Alastair Crooke
June 24, 2020 © Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst