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've
penned critical editorials around Memorial Days. These challenged the wars'
prospects ,
questioned the efficacy of the volunteer military, and
encouraged citizens to honor the fallen by creating fewer of them.
Little has changed, except how America fights. But that's the point: outsourcing
combat to machines, mercenaries, and militias rendered war so opaque that Washington wages it
absent public oversight or awareness -- and empathy. That's the formula for forever war.
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 .
No one wants to see American troops killed, but a death disparity so stark stretches classic
definitions of combat. Yet for locals, it likely feels a whole lot like "real" war on
the business end of U.S. bombs and bullets.
So this year, given the stark reality that even a deadly pandemic -- and
pleas for global ceasefire -- hasn't
slowed Washington's war machine, it's reasonable to question the very concept of Memorial
Day. There are also important parallels with Labor Day -- the holiday bookend to today's
seasonal kick off. Just as memorializing America's obscenely lopsided battle deaths is
increasingly indecent, a federal holiday devoted to a labor movement the government has
aggressively eviscerated is deeply troubling.
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.
Widening the aperture unveils thousands more "non-combat" -- but war-related -- uniformed
deaths in desperate need of memorializing. From 2006-2018
alone , 3,540 active-duty service members took their own lives -- just a fraction of the
15-20 daily veteran
suicides -- and another 640 died in accidents involving substance-abuse. Each death is
unique, but studies
demonstrate that the combined effects of PTSD and moral injury -- these wars' "
signature wound " -- contributed to this massive loss of life. On a personal level, at
least four soldiers under our commands took their own lives, as have several friends. These are
real folks who left behind real loved ones.
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 die with them.
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.
In a new take on an old tradition, perhaps it's proper to not only pack away the whites, but
don black as a memorial to a republic in peril.
Matthew Hoh is a member of the advisory boards of Expose Facts, Veterans For
Peace and World Beyond War. He previously served in Iraq with a State Department team and with
the U.S. Marines. He is a Senior Fellow with the Center for International Policy.
Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii) has chosen to let Hillary Clinton get away with calling her an agent of
the Kremlin, dropping the defamation lawsuit for the sake of party unity and defeating
President Donald Trump.
While Gabbard and her campaign "remain certain of the action's legal merit," the new reality
of the Covid-19 pandemic requires them to "focus their time and attention on other priorities,
including defeating Donald Trump in 2020, rather than righting the wrongs here," her
attorney Dan Terzian wrote in the court filing withdrawing the lawsuit on Wednesday.
It was a far cry from the fiery tone of the original complaint, filed in January, accusing
Clinton of lying "publicly, unambiguously, and with obvious malicious intent" when she claimed
Gabbard was "the favorite of the Russians," in an October 2019 interview.
Gabbard's withdrawal of the defamation claim against Clinton clearly represents the final
stage of 'bending the knee' to the party.....
> Counterpunch article by Rob Urie was magnificent.
The most interesting in this article is the concept of "managerial class liberals" (PMC --
probably the abbreviation for "professional and management class" ) as the core of Clinton
wing of the Dems. So a large part of the upper 20% of neoliberal society are the avid
supporters of the neoliberalism and this [retty numerious strata of society guarantees its
longevity and survival after shocks. As they viewed Trump as a direct threat to their own
wellbeing they also were the most avid Russiagaters. See, for example views of neoliberal
academic strata at
Here are some relevant quotes from the Rob Urie article (the main weakness is that he does
not use the term neoliberalism, which make all the article very fuzzy):
...The faction that believed the [Russiagate] charges, managerial class liberals (PMC),
still substantially believes them despite none of the evidence put forward to support them
holding up under examination.
This seeming role reversal of managerial class liberals being whipped into a
nationalistic fervor...
...or structural reasons including three-plus decades of planned deindustrialization,
the systematic weakening of labor's power and the social safety net, and the partitioning
of the economy into financialized and not financialized sectors, the bailouts of Wall
Street produced different outcomes by class, with the PMC seeing its fortunes quickly
restored while the working class was left to languish.
Prior to this -- in the early 1990s, the New Democrats had made a strategic decision
to tie their lot to the 'new economy' of Wall Street. Recruiting suburban Republicans into
the Democratic Party was old news by Bill Clinton's second term. The PMC was made the
ideological core of the Party. This helps explain the substantial overlap between the
'liberal hawks' who would some years later support George W. Bush's war against Iraq and
the Russiagate truthers ...
... it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press
-- the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the
story.
Do the Democratic Party's leadership and its many allied mainstream media outlets have no
shame? They are determined to run Joe Biden, a presidential candidate who embodies many of the
evils for which they condemn Donald Trump. Corporate Joe
Democrats rightly charge the reputed billionaire Donald Trump with
serving the wealthy few . Yes, but what about Joe? His corporatist and pro-Wall Street
record in
Congress included votes to rollback bankruptcy
protections for college graduates (1978) and vocational school graduates (1984) with
federal student loans.
He
worked with Republicans to pass the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act, which put " clean slate " Chapter-7 bankruptcy out of reach for millions of
ordinary Americans (2005).
Biden voted against a bill that would have compelled credit card companies to warn customers
of the costs of only making minimum payments. He honored campaign
cash from Coca-Cola by cosponsoring a bill that permitted soft-drink producers to skirt
antitrust laws (1979).
He joined just one other Congressional Democrat to vote against a Judiciary Committee
measure to increase consumers' rights to sue corporations for price-fixing (1979).
He strongly
backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which permitted the re-merging of investment and
commercial banking by repealing the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act. (This helped create the
2007-8 financial crisis and subsequent recession, which led to a massive taxpayer bailout of
the rich combined with little for the rest of the population – a policy that Biden backed
as vice presidential candidate and as Vice President).
During his time as a US Senator, " lunch bucket Joe " Biden
supported the globalist investor rights North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
cost millions of US manufacturing workers their jobs.
Adding neoliberal insult to neoliberal injury, presidential candidate Biden has criticized
those who advocate a universal basic income (a fundamental need, in the wake of the current
Covid-19 crash) of "
selling American workers short " and undermining the "dignity" of work.
Biden opposes calls for supposedly " too expensive " universal Single Payer health
insurance, going so far as to say he would
veto a Medicare for All bill as president! He defends Big Business and the rich from
popular criticism, mocking those who "want to single out big corporations for all the blame"
and
proclaiming " I don't think five hundred billionaires are the reason we're in trouble.
The folks at the top aren't bad guys. "
Biden even says he has "no empathy" for Millennials' struggle to get by in the savagely
unequal precariat economy he helped create over his many years of service to the Lords of
Capital. " The younger generation now tells me how tough things are -- give me a
break, " said Biden, while speaking to Patt Morrison of the Los Angeles Times two years
ago. " No, no, I have no
empathy for it, give me a break ."
Biden has not spoken one critical word about Trump and Congress's taxpayer-funded bailout
for the American capitalist "elite" and its top corporations and financial institutions in the
wake of Covid-19 – a massive and largely
unaccountable giveaway that puts no caps on executive compensation and elite profits while
offering little more than a pittance to the nation's working-class majority.
The Democrats and their media
rightly accuse Trump of serial deception, misstatement, and lying. Okay, but what about
Joe? In
a lie told twice , in 2001 and 2007, Biden falsely and viciously claimed that his first
wife and baby boy were killed by a drunk truck driver in 1972.
On the campaign trail last year, Biden told a ridiculous tale (a longstanding recurrent
Biden fib) about his supposed heroic role in honoring a medal-winning US soldier in a war zone
as vice president.
Last February, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Biden tried to win Black votes by
falsely claiming to have been arrested while trying to visit Nelson Mandela in jail during
the apartheid era in South Africa.
Last January, during a debate, Biden claimed that he argued against George W. Bush's
invasion of Iraq immediately after it began. In fact, it took Biden two years
to admit that Bush's war and Biden's own Senate vote to authorize it were "mistakes" (try
'crimes').
Sleepy Joe
The Democrats and their media raise legitimate questions about Trump's mental health and
fitness. Fine, but what about Joe? Earlier this year, he strangely invaded centrist MSNBC host
Joy Reid's physical space to accuse her of being a radical who wants "
a physical revolution ."
As a presidential candidate in the current cycle, Biden has forgotten
what state he's in,
confused his wife with his sister , and claimed that he would have " beaten the
hell out of Trump " in high school. Last September , he tried to woo Black voters
with a bizarre and rambling story about an alleged past adolescent swimming pool confrontation
with a young Black tough named " Corn Pop ."
On the campaign trail in Iowa, an unhinged Biden
said this to an older white male Elizabeth Warren supporter who dared to ask about the
corruption involved in Hunter Biden's lucrative presence on the board of a gas company in
Ukraine: " You're a damn liar .Look, fat you're too old to vote for me ."
Speaking in Texas last March, Biden made audience members cringe when he called Super
Tuesday " Super
Thursday " and tried to quote from the American Declaration of Independence. " We hold
these truths to be self-evident ," Biden gaffed: " All men um, are created by the, um,
co, oh, YOU KNOW THE THING !"
Biden responded
to a debate question about racial inequality, segregation, and the legacy of slavery last
September by smirkng and then awkwardly telling Black parents to " put on the television, I
mean the record player " for their children.
Last February, he called a young female voter in New Hampshire
" a lying dog-faced pony soldier. " He also said that
"150 million" Americans – almost half of the US population – " have been
killed " due to gun violence.
In debates and interviews, the 77-year old Biden routinely loses his train of thought in
mid-sentence, mis-pronounces his words, forgets basic facts, and generally looks confused while
seeming to rave and be on the verge of punching someone.
Bodyguards have had to stand between Biden and voters because he lacks the impulse control
to stop himself from
touching, sniffing, and massaging women in his vicinity.
It's not for nothing that the Democratic National Committee and the Biden campaign are
keeping "Sleepy Joe" as much
out of the public eye – almost literally locked in his basement – as
possible.
But just as FOX News looks the other way when it comes to Trump's mental illness and
difficulties, the liberal mainstream media is shockingly silent on Biden's clearly fading cognitive health.
In 2020 as in previous US elections, Democrats are telling American progressives yet again
that they must vote for an inadequate, duplicitous, imperial, and corporate-captive
presidential candidate as " the lesser evil. " In reality, however, Lesser Evil-ism is
a self-fulfilling prophecy that helps move the narrow American major-party spectrum further to
the right while channeling popular political energies into an electoral system that does not
represent the nation's working- and middle-class majority.
Aptly described by the late left political scientist Sheldon Wolin as " the
Inauthentic Opposition, " the neoliberal Democratic Party offers no serious resistance,
electoral or otherwise, to the corporate and financial class rule advanced by the rightmost of
the only two viable political organizations. The mentally declining liar and corporatist Joe
Biden is graphic and depressing evidence for Wolin's thesis.
Paul Street is the author of numerous books, including They Rule: The 1% v. Democracy
(Routledge, 2014) and The Empire's New Clothes: Barack Obama in the Real World of Power
(Routledge, 2011).
The dems are incapable of finding a credible stand in for Biden.
Some flunky might come to the fore but thet will most likely be the result of a 'committee'
decision as the dems have cancelled democracy and decency.
Posted by: uncle tungsten | May 5 2020 18:31 utc |
4
Seeing everyone get worked up over Biden is funny. Do you think you'll get a better
candidate? Bernie dropped out for a reason. He was never a real candidate. There will not be
any real candidate for change.
Killary's pretended "health problems" in 2016 seem like a fore-shadowing of Biden's. May
be she really is the ultimately "the one" in 2020.
It doesn't matter who the nominee is, and that's true for both parties. As I believe we all
know, Wall Street, the military-industrial complex and, to some extent, the bureaucracy, are
what drives the agenda. The goons heading up the parade are simply an odd form of bread and
circus.
Cthulhu couldn't destroy the US any more than its politicians and other leaders in its
other institutions (in education, in the entertainment and media industries, in the financial
sector, in the defence industry) have already done so perhaps his time has come.
The other players would seem to be DSA and the Greens, and I'm not sure what they would
think of this. But taking a big chuck of the labor movement out of the Democrat orbit would be
interesting. Especially considering that nurses are as well-liked as, say, firefighters.
Bernie didn't want a revolution. He wanted the establishment to accept his candidacy. If
they didn't accept it then he was not going to fight. He wasted 3+ years of my time and
energy. Not to mention betraying Waffle House waitresses across the country, who repeatedly
donated money they needed to Bernie's campaign.
The US dodged a bullet with Bernie dropping out "my friend Joe" "Joe can beat Trump" &
not supporting Tulsi from being smeared & erased! Bernie has no balls - the guy endorsed
Hillary & now Biden - slapping Tulsi in the face for quitting, destroying her career for
him!
v> Aaron has made a career over all the false trump hoax's and exposing them. To bad
he's blinded in other ways and is can't be objective about Bernie and the dem establishment.
Unfortunately he part of the problem because at the end of the day he looks the other way.
And excuses those in media who lie cuz they have kids to feed. Never gonna be change with
that attitude...very Bernie like.
Sanders was never a serious candidate. For the second time in his 40ys of public service
he became sort of relevant. He was the joke of the senate all these years. A complete
fraud.
ss="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> "The answer is there is no point," as
cogently analyzed by our ever-faithful Jimmy Dore. "The Young Turks" are not progressive and
neither is Bernie. In 2016, Cenk Uygar surrendered to the Hillary-Killary inevitability
faster than Bernie could say, "Just let me know when it's time to quit." Here is the master
conspiracy theory that resolves all of this. Bernie is paid by the DNC, Russia, and The
Clinton Foundation to excite real Progressives that "the revolution will be televised." Then
he caves. How effective is that plan? It channels and harnesses a critical mass of energy and
momentum in order to throw it over the cliff. In two consecutive presidential elections,
Bernie Sanders led the lemmings to the Pied Piper's house. How dumb are we? The establishment
has framed a political strategy whereby the hopes of the people are continually and
unrelentingly crushed by the smoke-and-mirrors deceptions of their elusive "leader."
Eventually, the poor deluded people simply stop believing in any of it, and the establishment
wins. Can anyone prove me wrong?
"You vote for the whoever is least worst and then you push them in the direction you
can." But you give up all of your leverage to move them as soon as you vote for
them...
Bernie Sanders was a plant, just there to mislead the working class that they have someone
truly fighting for they cause. While robbing us of our money and time.
Bernie was too old in 2016. He's way too old now. He didn't want it. He didn't have the
fight or the drive. He was just going through the motions. Probably for another book
deal.
Sadly it seems Bernie turned out to be representative of "not so obvious establishment."
Bernie has done this to us twice now. He has funneled sincere supporters who want real change
towards establishment. Earlier towards Hillary and this time towards Biden.Bernie with his
endorsement has lost my respect.
Was Sanders a cynical tool of the establishment who set out to deceive the population into
supporting the establishment? Was Bernie Sanders modeled on William Jennings Bryan, aka "The
Cowardly Lion?"
Notable quotes:
"... The throne is occupied by a puppet. The puppet masters pull the strings from off stage. You can't get the job - or even be in the game - if you are not a willing puppet. This explains the establishment's reaction to Trump, who was (from their point of view) inexplicably elected. ..."
People expecting any president to change anything are sadly deluded.
Remember Hope and Change? How many bought into that only to end up with mandatory payoffs
to the health insurance cartels, huge subsidies to Wall St. after they crashed the economy,
military malfeasance across the globe, i.e. business as usual.
The throne is occupied by a puppet. The puppet masters pull the strings from off
stage. You can't get the job - or even be in the game - if you are not a willing puppet. This
explains the establishment's reaction to Trump, who was (from their point of view)
inexplicably elected.
We've come a long way from "Ask not what this country can do for you ...".
I had thought that I would not comment more on murkan politics - and with respect to those of
you who are trying to see silver linings in the capitulations of Sanders and Gabbard - but,
now I read that O'bomber has just endorsed the crook, aka Biden, to "restore the soul of the
nation." Wow. So I guess that means that the soul of the Dimmocrat Nation is bombing burning
looting... Syria Yemen Venezuela Nicaragua Ecuador North Korea Iran Iraq Afghanistan..
O'Bomber had his bloody hands in those places - Ukrainia - Democrat Country, right Yaz..?
Yes Noah Way - the empire in on suicide watch but the peeps seem to be too fat and too
delusional to do much. Me thinks the end will come not from any "popular uprising" but rather
from the eventual crash of the almightydollar.
I am probably a case in point for this article. When Trump was elected, I got a "sharing
my grief" letter from Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). This was my response to his letter, posted
November 18, 2016:
Thank you, Sen. Merkley, for the reassurance and encouragement.
Although I voted a straight Democratic ticket, I had no enthusiasm for Hillary
Clinton.
I was angry that the Democratic Party has allowed itself to fall into the neo-con,
neo-liberal, globalist approach/understanding of our most important issues and gave up the
nationalism and populism that was so important to the Progressive movement. This morphing
of the Party is something I've watched with considerable dismay for many years. The powers
and influences that have taken over the Party are bringing it to ruin, and are ultimately
responsible for this mind-boggling defeat.
We are all going to have to pay a lot more attention to politics in the coming years. We
no longer have the luxury of tending to our own families and affairs, trusting that our
government is in good hands, led by people who will do the right thing and not let anything
catastrophic happen. I did not have such confidence in Hillary Clinton, by the way. From
the outset I was in favor of a Biden/Warren ticket, and hoped that Elizabeth would be our
first female President, not Hillary. But then, I grew up in Oklahoma, and believe she's a
progressive, Oklahoma populist down deep.
The news coverage of the election by NPR was abysmal, in my view. This defeat was not a
revolt of the "losers," of the declining White middle class males, and the rise of
misogyny, racism and isolationism. (Those words were not used, of course, but that
understanding appeared to me to be embedded in the analysis.)
Isn't it possible that liberal, progressive, educated Americans might be unhappy with
the way American power, prestige, money and "soft" power has been squandered, and towards
what ends? Do you think educated
Americans are in favor of paring down the Constitution, beginning with the First and
Second Amendments? Do you believe that ordinary American citizens are to be feared, are the
enemy? Do you think they are all on board with spending trillions of dollars on Middle East
wars, creating destabilized states and the refugee crisis, and letting our own
infrastructure deteriorate and
Social Security go bankrupt? Will the SS funds borrowed to fund these and other wars,
and to balance budgets, ever be repaid? Do you think Americans are so dumbed down and
cynical that they would look to the Clintons as "wholesome" examples of what is best in
America and for uncorrupted leadership? Do you think no one either heard or remembered "We
came, we saw, he died! Ha, ha, ha"? Or have not heard Hillary's intent to establish a
no-fly zone in Syria, knowing full well that such an action could lead to war with Russia?
Do you think educated Americans really bought the "killing of Osama bin Laden" theater? Did
you? I admit that the tired "Osama" specter had to be laid to rest, but why not do it in an
upright and out front manner? Why all the deceit? It is this kind of deeply embedded
dishonesty and resulting corruption of justice, integrity and open political process that
has brought the Democratic Party into disrepute. Do you think people remain ignorant of the
Clinton Foundation's pay-for-play method of enriching themselves, or that the Foundation
transferred $1.8 billion to Doha? Where did all that loot come from? We are not talking
here of Bill Gates, or the CEO of Google. Where did the money come from?
I do not put you in the same camp. My first encounter with you was when you gave the
keynote speech at the first graduating class of the MET in Tigard. You have never tainted
yourself with lies and falseness. Maybe it is easier to retain your integrity being from
Oregon, since I have the same high regard for Rep. Earl Blumenauer and Peter DeFazio. You
are the exemplars of liberal, progressive values and grassroots democracy, not Hillary
Clinton.
As much as I have grown to dislike Hillary Clinton, listening to her concession speech,
I had a sense of tragedy. She seems such an intelligent, lovely woman.
It could and probably should have ended differently. Was it ambition that destroyed her,
or hubris and lack of humility? What happened to her respect for the intelligence and basic
decency of the American people? Where has simple honesty gone?
She appears to me to have taken the "left-hand path," and perhaps it is better that she
be personally ruined than allowed to take the country to ruin along with her, since that
path always ends in ruin.
I hope for the best. We will, I trust, survive a Donald Trump administration. There will
be damage, of course. Trump has to repay supporters who put their own political careers at
risk to back him. This is frightening all by itself–imagine a Sarah Palin in charge
of the Department of Energy! I fear the dismantling of all the federal regulatory agencies
that five generations of Americans have worked so hard to put in place–one of the
great achievements of the Progressive movement. Imagine BPA sold off to the highest bidder,
or our public lands bartered off to pay for the ruinous wars we have been visiting on the
Middle East!
By writing you in this frank way, I do not mean to be disrespectful. As I said, I hold
you, Rep. Blumenauer and Rep. DeFazio in high regard, and believe Oregon has the best
congressional delegation in the nation, bar none. More tThan ever, we all depend upon you
to be honest, vigilant and courageous, and prevent the worst possible outcomes from this
disaster from being realized.
I was there in the arena, watching him concede in 2016 – and shortly thereafter in the
media tent, where a bunch of Sanders delegates had walked out in protest. A colleague of mine
was outside the perimeter fence, covering the protest by tens of thousands of Democrats
outraged by the party establishment's conduct. When we interviewed them, a lot of these
people vowed never to vote Democrat again.
A few months earlier in Atlanta, I heard Sanders volunteers bluntly say they'd rather vote
for Trump than for Clinton. When WikiLeaks published those internal emails showing the party
was behind Hillary and actively sabotaging Bernie – which party chair Donna Brazile later
confirmed
as true – the DNC ran damage control by blaming Russia. But the voters remembered
– and Trump won.
Sanders tried again in 2020, but the script began repeating itself right from the start. In
Iowa, the party establishment and their media allies desperately propped up Pete Buttigieg
(anyone remember him?) and others. Biden, anointed as the front-runner for the purposes of
Ukrainegate, wasn't even on the map – until he won South Carolina, and everyone suddenly
fell into line behind him.
Can he screw his supporters even more than he has? "Moved the debate" needs some unpacking: Bernie successfully covered
Obama's healthcare betrayal (Obama confessed: a public option would be "unAmerican") with an an even bigger electoral betrayal.
It is unclear why he run, other than again to betray his followers...
"Bernie Sanders is a gutless fraud and faux Socialist (he’s merely a Centre-Left Social Democrat yet he portrayed his movement
as some sort of “Revolution”, LOL), who sadly represents the best you would ever get in the White House, in the sense that at
least he wouldn’t have started any new wars, wouldn’t have given any tax cuts to corporations and the wealthy, and wouldn’t have
outsourced any more jobs in new free trade agreements (these are the reasons I would have held my nose and voted for him if he had
been nominated, despite my much more Leftist beliefs). "
"Bernie fulfilled his sheepdog role of keeping people who want change attached to the moribund, corrupt Democratic Party, so
he can now retire well loved by the political class. Anyone who thinks change can come from the Democrats is deluded. You'd have
better luck changing the Republicans as they seem more open to ideas... Building a real third party is more needed than ever."
"Well that's completely not unexpected. His job was to con the non-retarded democrats into thinking they have a choice. He
will laugh all they way to the bank, just like he did the last time."
Notable quotes:
"... Can't believe we're even still speculating or fretting over Bernie's dropping out. His supporters can be oh so sad that his ideas were the best, but the dastardly "establishment" just wouldn't go along! He lost me in 2016 with his sheepdogging; he lost me in 2019 for not attacking Biden's corruption and war-mongering, but the killer for me was Bernie embracing the moronic and dangerous Russiagate narrative. ..."
Bernie was the sheepdog of the DNC that kept people from organizing outside of the two party
hustle(system).
People were pointing this out to his supporters very early on in this cycle using last
cycle as evidence yet no one listened.
If there is a next cycle let's hope Bernie didn't ruin them for political action and they
finally figure out they need to go against the entire establishment machine instead of trying
to reform one half of the mafia from within.
>Those bashing Bernie should understand that there was no way in hell
> the establishment (party duopoly and corporate media complex) was
> going to let him win.
People here paying attention knew he wouldn't be allowed to win. So did Bernie also know
this, and went along with the charade, or did he not know, thus showing that he is a complete
fool and nincompoop?
Knowing he could not win, a real radical would've been building a movement, not an
electoral machine. He did earn lots of delegates but threw them all away instead of taking
them to the convention and cause a ruckus.
No one will be talking about Bernie's ideas by next month, but there will be plenty of US
peons desperate for food and shelter. Will Bernie's movement be there to organize them and
help them get the necessities of life?
The sad part is all the effort and resources wasted on Bernie the Bozo's campaign. That
campaign money could've bought a lot of groceries and tents.
Rob @ 48 said;"The coming general election will feature the two least qualified candidates in
U.S. history. Trump is a malignant narcissist and very stupid, while Biden is a corporatist
and a hawk in addition to being senile."
Agreed, and your comment is probably too kind to both..
Bernie is like much of the so-called left, they've forgotten how to fight, by surrounding
themselves with DNC hacks. Never the less, his ideas are credible, and shouldn't be
forgotten.
Don't see how DJT can lose in Nov., but stranger things have happened. Regardless, I'll
never vote Biden, and if DJT wins, the U$A gets what it deserves, whatever that is.
All Bernie can do is continue to collect delegates, and hope to move Biden leftward, to at
least support Medicare for all, which, given the state of healthcare in our present pandemic,
might gain some traction.
As I've said in this blog many times, my bet is the American working classes will choose
fascism. And I'll complement my thesis: the sandernistas will be the decisive factor.
Can't believe we're even still speculating or fretting over Bernie's dropping out. His
supporters can be oh so sad that his ideas were the best, but the dastardly "establishment"
just wouldn't go along! He lost me in 2016 with his sheepdogging; he lost me in 2019 for not
attacking Biden's corruption and war-mongering, but the killer for me was Bernie embracing
the moronic and dangerous Russiagate narrative. The sunlight is shining onto many areas,
as Caitlin Johnstone says, if we can wake up and see it and create a real movement for sane
actions and policies. Bernie's "movement" was designed to be a feel-good exercise in support
of empire.
I never mentioned or voiced any support for Trump or Pelosi, and speaking of straw, you
probably don't even realize that your response is a textbook example of a straw man argument
which involves refuting an argument that was not actually presented. Well done.
I live in Hawaii and know what my neighbors think. I'm glad Gabbard is back here and
making a difference instead of wasting more time on the pointless theatre of the DNC. I don't
like the Biden support but name one serious candidate who fought the MIC these primaries or
got 5% of the MSM hostility that Gabbard took. That would be no one. Your disappointment is
of no concern to the people of Hawaii.
Like I've said before. I'll wait to hear about the Biden issue from the candidate herself
before breaking out the tar and feathers. Right now she's got more important things to do
that satisfying random bloggers.
I am fine with Tulsi bailing out for her community and that is precisely the most sincere
thing to do. I applaud that move.
Endorsing Biden at any time? NO WAY> that man is a republican in drag, a scumbag in a
suit, a thief in in a cassock,a creep in the vestry, a carpetbagger backing fascist Ukraine
and stealing from their people. He and his decrepit son stole the USA and IMF loans and left
the Ukrainian people to pay them off. She endorsed that shit.
Silence would have been the appropriate action and tactically correct until after the
Convention if she was politically intent to await the process between the B and the B.
In
August and
November I wrote about the strangeness of United States House of Representatives member and
then 2020 Democratic presidential nomination candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) regularly playing
up her 16-plus years and counting employment in the United States military, and other
Americans' service in the US military as well, as a virtue while she at the same time makes
opposing major actions of that military, including the carrying out of certain wars, a focus of
her congressional work and campaign.
Jimmy Dore, who has similar concerns about Gabbard's rhetoric promoting the virtue of
service in the US military, asked Gabbard about this in an interview with Gabbard at his The
Jimmy Dore Show in March. In the interview focused largely on Gabbard's announcing , upon her
dropping out of the Democratic presidential nomination race, that she is supporting Joe Biden
for president, Dore asked several tough questions in an effort to induce Gabbard to address the
matter directly. Here is the initial exchange between Dore and Gabbard on the topic, with Dore
twice attempting to elicit a clear explanation from Gabbard:
DORE: So, I just wanted to talk with you a little bit more about antiwar veterans. So, a lot
of veterans and antiwar veterans watch this show, and I meet them when we do events and
everything. And they wanted me to ask you this. They say a lot of antiwar veterans say they
are not proud to have served, that they are sorry to have taken part, and they offer apology
to the countries that they occupied and the people that are living there, and that
participating in these wars is only a service to weapons manufacturers and war profiteers.
So, what do you say to that?
GABBARD: I respect every veteran -- those who make those statements and those who express
their pride in serving our country. I am personally I am proud to wear this country's
uniform. I am grateful for the privilege of being able to serve. And it is those experiences
that I have had throughout my service that have motivated me to dedicate all of my energy
towards bringing about the political change in our leadership that actually honors the great
sacrifice, selflessness, and courage that our men and women in uniform and that our veterans
lay on the line. I think that it's important to draw that line of distinction between those
who serve and wear the uniform and who salute the flag versus the politicians who are
dishonoring that service through the policies that they are advocating for.
DORE: So, I mean it seems to me that soldiers are not fighting for the safety and security
of this country when they go over to places like Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan. They're
actually achieving the opposite. even in fighting the War on Terror, where it's observed that
for every civilian killed we create two more jihadis. And so, I mean, it just seems, given
your piercing criticisms of these corporate interventions, can you square that circle for me
-- how you can be proud to serve in things that you call out for being wrong?
GABBARD: I'm proud to serve our country. I am angered by the politicians who needlessly
send our troops into harms way to fight in wars that don't make us any safer. There are
missions that our troops are sent on to go and defeat ISIS and al-Qaeda that are focused on
making the American people safe, and those are missions that should continue to defeat that
threat that is posed to our national security and foreign policy. But, you're right, there
are a lot of missions in whether it's continued deployments in Afghanistan without any clear
objective or any clear goal that actually serves our country's security interests or, you
know, regime change wars like we've in Iraq and Syria and Libya and other countries that
actually undermine our national security interests. So, there is a difference and a
distinction, especially when you know, when you understand that it's the politicians who are
making these decisions and it's why I'm focusing my efforts on bringing about that change
there to truly honor them and their service.
Later in the interview, Dore returned to the topic, again seeking to obtain from
Gabbard a coherent explanation while presenting his concern that Gabbard's promotion of the
virtue of being in the US military can encourage other people to choose employment in the US
government's war machine:
DORE: So, I just have one more question. So, a couple months ago there's these kids who live
across the street from me. I don't know how, they're like 16 through 19, and they're out
washing their car, and then three recruiters jumped out of their car and started recruiting
them to go fight in these bogus wars. And, so, Stef and I went out, and we started talking to
the kids, and we said: "You don't have to listen to these guys; tell these guys to get lost."
And, so, it made me think, you know, everything that you touch you make it a little more
attractive, so, are you worried that people are joining these bogus wars because you made
joining a little more attractive?
GABBARD: No. I'm not. There's great honor in serving our country, and, whether you're a
kid who's graduating high school or you're someone of any age and you make that decision to
go and serve our country, no matter the political circumstances, that is a very rare and
special thing. I also respect those who say, 'No, I won't join the military because I don't
want to be in that position to have to go and fight in a war that a politician sends me to go
and fight." And I respect people's decisions on both ends of the spectrum. But, there is no
honor lost in those who make that decision, raising their right hand to say "I'm willing to
lay my life down for my country and the safety and well-being of the American people." And
that's a decision that's motivated by love.
Watch these exchanges between Dore and Gabbard, and the complete interview, here:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/Jka28F9ldBg
Good for Dore for trying three times in the interview to elicit from Gabbard a clear,
logical answer about this important apparent contradiction at the heart of one of her major
areas of focus in politics. All he received back was more of the same nonsense rhetoric Gabbard
has been putting out for so long, the same rhetoric the logic of which Dore was
challenging.
Luckily for Gabbard, few other people will broach the subject Dore broached. The social
convention that everyone should thank people in the military for their service and shut up
about any criticisms they may have about such service is so strong that few interviewers have
the guts to question Gabbard about this elephant in the room.
US Politicians never forget that for the past seventy years russophobia and sinophobic
racism- both of which have deep roots in the culture- formed the bases of the ideology of
anti-communism.
The Democrats, totally discredited by the 2016 Election campaign and decades of
Clinton/Obama swings towards the right and away from the old New Deal constituencies, began
by accusing Trump of colluding with the Russians- who most of the DNC deliberately suggested,
and probably genuinely thought, were Communists.
Trump's response is now to revive the anti-Peoples Republic witch-hunts of the past to use
against the Democrats.
We have two discredited old parties, incapable of dealing with the crises facing them,
attempting to revive the only ideas that have ever galvanised the US public in their
lifetimes: opposition to communism and the racism which underlay just about every US military
adventure since 1945 - the all purpose anti-gook racism that saw them through the wars
against Japan, Korea, IndoChina and the People's Republic.
It is going to make the spectacle of two monkeys throwing shit at each other seem
positively restrained - the Democrats howling about Russia and the Republicans, reverting to
type, starting up lynch mobs against China.
"... Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the MIC. ..."
"... What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie. ..."
"... Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the nomination, LOL. ..."
"... Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt, real scum he is. ..."
"... The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11. ..."
"... Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China. ..."
"... She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic candidate, if she wanted to keep her word. Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated warmonger. ..."
"... It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the nominee…but Biden is brain dead. ..."
It was pretty clear to most observers that Tulsi Gabbard, being the only real "peace
candidate" would never be allowed to get the nomination, nevermind make it into the White
House. It was also clear that Tulsi, for all her very real qualities, simply did not have what
it takes to take on "The Swamp". Still, in spite of this all, her candidacy and campaign were
like a huge pitcher of cool water in the middle of an immense and dry desert. Her uniqueness
amongst all the candidate is what make her betrayal even more painful for those who respected
or even supported her. Once it became clear that she would never get the nomination, not only
did she not run as an independent (something which Hillary seems to fear a lot), she endorsed
Uncle Joe, the clearly senile, totally corrupt and generally repugnant frontman for the Clinton
gang. This endorsement of Biden is something which she did not have to do, but she did it.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons. Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core, which is hardly big news, but which is
dramatically confirmed by Gabbard's profoundly immoral decision. Why do I say that?
Because Biden is the ultimate "anti-Gabbard", she should have endorsed either Bernie, or
even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the
MIC.
At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of this
debacle.
What, exactly, did Tulsi owe to Bernie? I don’t recall him defending her from the
Russiagate bots – even Yang did far more of that than Bernie.
Bernie had instead been too busy sucking up to the young careerist SJWs in his movement
and to the Russiagate freaks, rather appropriate that he was Russiagated out of the
nomination, LOL.
All the candidates, including Tulsi, had committed to supporting the winner and
Bernie’s odds by the time Tulsi endorsed Biden were very close to zero. It is ironic,
as noted by Michael Tracey, that it is generally Tulsi’s most eager supporters who were
most inclined to dismiss her own words.
Very sad to see. I just figure they got to her in some way through blackmail, threatening
her family, etc. Seems rather out of character otherwise. The description of Biden is apt,
real scum he is.
The virus, whatever it’s origin, has provided the opportunity to revoke whatever is
left of the rights of the populace, the best since 9-11.
Turkey lacks either the will, or the capability
At this point they probably have way lower capability than their numbers suggest.
They’ve had enough to deal with just Kurd guerillas. Their approach is NATO style
throwing a lot of ordinance at targets. Don’t count on them for anything.
Trump will wipe the floor with Biden. Biden was main actor in starting two wars. War in Libya
and war in Syria . On top of it Biden did have a fishy deals in Ukraine and China.
Biden is a dead duck with slow wit. He has no chance.
She could have waited until the bitter end to endorse the Democratic
candidate, if she wanted to keep her word.
Or she could have not done so, in the same way that a soldier need not follow an illegal
order, or anyone with a conscience would avoid endorsing a committed and repeated
warmonger.
This is my comment from a year ago, if Saker censor read it, he wouldn’t be surprised.
It just means his “analysis” is worth shit.
How can anyone who is a CFR member or serves two rounds in Iraq based on Colin Powell be
anyone good? How the fuck?
All his writing (description of the facts (after the facts) of what everyone can see) brings
nothing and any forecasts are wrong (love for Tulsi, fall of Ukraine, nuclear war threatening
as an excuse for Russia’s submission to the Empire).
Saker was over when he began to censor those who disagree with him and who, as you can see,
are right. Pride walks before falling. Fuck him and his great Tulsi love!
It is academic for me to argue which party is the dumbest, since I
believe both are part of the Deep State. But currently the dems have it over the repubs in
stupidity. Gabbard was the best in a horrible lineup. She was a one trick
pony…antiwar…but a great trick. I know about the promise to endorse the
nominee…but Biden is brain dead.
If I had known that she had promised to endorse the Democratic nominee I would never have had
thoughts about her candidacy. since she was my choice based on her anti regime change stance
I knew she didn’t have a chance. She had watched Bernie get deprived of the nomination
in 2016. It was worrisome that she was a former CFR member. It didn’t bother me that
she didn’t get into 9/11 as that is death for anyone who wants the system to take them
seriously. It did bother me that she didn’t confront the Israeli – whatever you
want to call it. Especially as the media ignored her and the party worked against her. She
was an attractive candidate and seemed sincere but the Dem voters never considered her. so
fooled again. then again we here all know that the President only has so much power against
the national security evolving police state and MIC and global deep state. If they use it
then they only have to watch the Zapruder film for their near future or their loved ones.
Tulsi’s problem is that she thinks GIs SHOULD NOT REFUSE TO DEPLOY OUTSIDE OF THE
COUNTRY LIKE WE DID 53 YEARS AGO. She thinks THEY HAVE A DUTY TO GO!!! She probably
doesn’t even know who Smedley Butler is. She wants to end the Regime Change Wars but
has no idea how to do it!!! So now she is supporting a Warmonger who just had a #Me To charge
and his accuser has been labeled a RUSSIAN AGENT AND WAS DOXXED.
“At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of
this debacle.”
It would be sad in everyday life, but national politics and everyday life have almost nothing
in common.
And that is all the truer when discussing the national politics of the United States, which
may fairly be characterized as ruthless and totally corrupt.
Tulsi Gabbard is a young, intelligent, appealing woman who wants a political career ahead of
her.
Her prospects would instantly drop to zero if she did not endorse the party’s
candidate.
I find it disappointing that she did so, but I find the entire American political scene
disappointing.
I am not even clear why a person like Tulsi would want to run in the United States.
Perhaps it indicates an underlying level of naivete?
Still some lingering belief in the high school civics class vision of American politics?
Stuff about guys in frock coats pledging their sacred honor?
Bringing good intentions to Washington is bit like Jesus’s statement about throwing
pearls before swine.
I am not even sure what Tulsi was doing because her ability to change anything important is
also about zero – even in the imaginary world of becoming president.
The game is fixed. The stakes are so immense with just the military/security arm of the
establishment burning through a trillion dollars a year.
It virtually all exists to serve plutocrats and empire.
None of those powerful people want a “change” candidate.
The last president who actually thought he could challenge the American establishment left
half his head on a street in Dallas.
@AKAHorace Not a chance. Joe Biden represents the old Neo-liberal wing of the Democratic
party. Tulsi is an anti-war progressive.
The other thing you have to consider is Joe is old and senile. It is not certain he would
finish out his 4-year term if elected. The DNC will make sure they pick someone they are
willing to see in power in case Joe bows out. There were paranoid rumors that it would be HRC
but I don’t think this will fly with the public. Most likely a moderate woman. Kamala
Harris (in a cynical bid to get the Black vote). Amy Klobuchar.
Whether Tulsi ‘had what it takes’ to ‘drain the swamp’ will never be
known. The DNC made sure to take away her voice from the debates after she wiped the floor
with Kamala Harris in an early debate. She got next to no publicity from the msm, but she was
certainly better than any of the alternatives.
Like you, I was very disappointed when she supported Biden the war monger and fraud artist.
Regarding Tulsi Gabbard, from the begining, I was (possibly) the only person who thought she
was completely Fake . She is full of American B ** S “Patriotism” a.k.a.
Fascism. I mean, if she is quitting politics, she should have endorsed Sanders and starves
the self-promoted Zionist, warmongering, corrupt Biden of crucial votes in several
progressive counties in the US.
Medicare for All is not a popular issue with democrats.
Nevada culinary union lays into Sanders supporters after health care backlash
The powerful group said the candidate’s backers attacked it for criticizing
Sanders’ “Medicare for All” proposal.
I sent some money to Gabbard and have no regrets. The American people betrayed her not the
other way around. Why shouldn’t she endorse Biden, an endorsement* is a meaningless
gesture, political survival is the most important thing for her. Thanks for trying Tulsi.
* In the US an endorsement only has meaning if the endorser has some sort of political
machine to get a candidate elected or at least raise money. Gabbard had none except maybe
veterans.
When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an
independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other)
reasons.
We should cut both Bernie and Tulsi some slack; when you go up against a machine whose
principle actors have a documented triple-digit body-count, you either kiss the ring or sleep
with the fishes.
Tulsi Gabbard was a “faux” anti-war candidate , when it became known that she was
a member of the Council on Foreign Relations they scrubbed her name from the site.
I recently receive an email from her where she came out in support of warmonger Joe Biden
and blamed Al Qaeda for the 9/11 false flag attacks
It’s all Kabuki theater and the democratic and republican parties operate like crime
families and have proven once again that they are “two wings of the same bird of prey
“. The US is a pathocracy, kakistocracy, cryptocracy, plutocracy all rolled into
one.
Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the
Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core
The Tulsitards will get mad at you but she exposed herself as a fraud. Biden’s been
a big warmonger on the left and she endorsed him. Biden is one of the biggest assholes in the
swamp and attacks and insults voters who asks him fair questions and she calls him a
unifier.
If Bernie was for real then he’d run as an independent instead of cucking and
endorsing Biden.
Recall that last election wherein Tulsi stepped down from a vaunted position within the D
Party Establishment to, IIRC, support Bernie. Any case, whatever it was, it was a choice
which indicated a different and principled politician - in the person of Tulsi - or at least
she appeared to be an individual with a few principles.
Now this Biden endorsement is decidedly unprincipled, because Biden is, without question,
a warhawk, a self-proclaimed proud Zionist, and a persistent enabler of the one percent - be
it "accidental" or be it brazen with forethought and full intent. Biden has a colorful
history of being a key figure in the dismantlement of the middle class and the further
impoverishment of the working poor.
I am disappointed in Tulsi Gabbard.
Though she'd have been torn to bits with the exposure of her association with the unusual
religious cult. Makes one curious as to how she has gotten as far as she has in mainstream
politics.
Will Sanders supporters vote for Biden? I think the answer is NO.
Notable quotes:
"... His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016? ..."
"... The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. ..."
"... The new Democratic party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders' momentum and effectively ending his run. ..."
"... It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter their core concerns ..."
"... Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary, made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than $1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common Dreams ..."
"... Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the region. ..."
"... Sanders' progressive restructuring has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business development. ..."
"... These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow." ..."
"... For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc., because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ..."
"... The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. ..."
"... It's about strategy and pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the dire situation in the Black community. ..."
"... The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations. ..."
Wall Street broke out its checkbooks for
Joe Biden in the wake of Super Tuesday, no surprise since his campaign is already its major
recipient. Plus, he was the VP for an administration greatly indebted to it. Transparency.
His campaign is awash in cash from the interests that Sanders is challenging as the very
source of the blockage to progress. Are we going to get a re-treading of the policies that
helped vault Trump to the White House in 2016?
Biden is the last moderate standing, having positioned himself clearly against the Sanders
"revolution" in the debates, though it's difficult to conjure a theme or concept that shapes
his campaign besides beating Trump, the perception he can giving him an edge. We can thank the
Democratic party establishment for pressuring the other moderates out of the race to prop Biden
up (Matthew Stevenson, "The Super Tuesday Sting," 3/6/20, CounterPunch ).
But race played a curious role. The Black vote saved his campaign in South Carolina and
strengthened his Super Tuesday and subsequent performances. He trumpeted his record on
race in the debates which Kamala Harris -- who has now endorsed him -- exposed as checkered at
best. Though avoiding any direct discussion of Obama's policies, he has at least been
mentioning him more often. This surely gave him a bump as well since the former president is
still popular among Blacks. Though selective amnesia likely rules here since the Congressional
Black Caucus separated itself from him early in his administration. The new Democratic
party that has over the past forty years or so become more like the Republican party has done
little for Blacks. So how do we explain the apparent love affair they have for the Democratic
party establishment? They went for Hilary at this same juncture in 2016, neutralizing Sanders'
momentum and effectively ending his run.
Black voters make up 56% of the Democratic electorate in South Carolina and Biden got an
estimated 61-64% of it. Sanders received 17%. These proportions generally hold nationally
through the latest series of primaries. But Blacks have the largest support of any group for
the signature progressive issue endorsed by Sanders, single payer health insurance. The
national percentage is 74%. Since it's hard to believe such deep-seeded beliefs could be
countered, what intervened? The all-out media assault from sundry front groups doing the
bidding of the private insurance industry to dissuade voters from choosing any candidate
spouting Medicare For All was surely influential but hardly determining.
It's the power of the Black leaders to represent their constituents in ways that counter
their core concerns , like their decreasing standard of living and their increasing
economic insecurity, according to Adolph Reed Jr. and Willie Legette. In the run-up to the 2016
South Carolina primary, for example, Congressmen James Clyburn (D-SC), John Lewis (D-GA), and
Cedric Richmond (D-LA) denounced calls for free public higher education as "irresponsible"
because "there are no free lunches." Clyburn, who endorsed Biden in the recent primary,
made his denouncement of Medicare for All and especially the Sanders progressive agenda quite
clear in this support. This is no great surprise since between 2008 and 2018 he took more than
$1 million from the pharmaceutical industry ("Mystique of the 'Black Vote'," Common
Dreams , 3/7/20).
Of course, the culture of these Southern states, mostly Republican, has been dominated
by the Wall Street neoliberal consensus ever since the Democrats lost their hold on the
region. The expectation has been that the post-Civil Rights semblance of movements would
coalesce around a resistance to this bloc, but the Black brokers and opinion shapers have
mostly relished their roles in the dominant power structure. Since 2016, according to Reed and
Legette, it has converged around a narrative that Sanders has difficulty appealing to Black
voters, even as polls have shown repeatedly that his program is more popular among Black
Americans than any other group. It has graded Sanders down for his critique of Obama and
especially for mounting a primary challenge against him. Sanders' progressive restructuring
has been rejected for policies that mesh with the neoliberal consensus, like the racial
programs for the educated and upwardly mobile that stress entrepreneurship and business
development. Its main objective is to "undermine Black Americans' participation in a broad
movement for social transformation along economically egalitarian lines. "
These brokers' support of the neoliberal consensus has been secured through framing the
larger issue as the preservation of rights. Mara Gay explains James Clyburn's strong support of
Biden as someone he knows personally who will fight for the basic rights that are eroding under
a Trump administration that has brought back the "same hostility and zeal for authoritarianism
that marked life under Jim Crow." She finds that voters concur, believing that Biden will
fight for those rights since, as one representative interviewee claims, he was "with Obama all
those years." The clincher is that he is also the best bet to beat Trump. They're "deeply
skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr. Trump" ("Why Southern
Democrats Saved Biden," New York Times , 3/6/20).
Is this an elite-fed discourse that stuck, or possibly some toxic populism like what
circulates among Trump supporters? An investment in the good ole days when the Civil Rights
Movement was ascendant is a worthy sentiment for sure. Where would racial relations be without
the historic transformation that produced the pivotal "rights" legislation in the 1960s? And
many who passed through those moments might have a romantic attraction to Biden's image even
though his support of Blacks before Obama hitched him was feeble.
But consider what's happened since. The turn to the right in the 1970s brought on a mild
"Reconstruction"-era backlash whose signal legal event was the Bakke case in 1977 which
weakened Affirmative Action and banned quotas that were now deemed proof of "reverse
discrimination." The down-turning economy during this decade was the start of a structural
change that revealed the widening wealth and income gap between the lower and upper classes,
and Blacks were hit disproportionately hard. The rights legislation that helped to narrow the
gap in the prior decade offered less protection.
The Reagan administration attempted to turn the clock back to the pre-Civil Rights era and
partially succeeded in wiping away the gains Blacks had made. Toward the end of the decade
protections, especially Affirmative Action, were further weakened legally, and culturally as
"reverse discrimination" claims from intellectuals like Charles Murray and others compounded,
supporting the rollback of social policy initiatives. These sympathies were also evident in
Black communities where leaders pondered how to do the right thing and reverse the loss of
ground. Many began to view Affirmative Action, for example, as a fetter, a burden that tainted
performance by suggesting it was undeserved. The 1990s went far in dismantling all regulatory
regimes, discrediting social policy initiatives, heeding the suggestions of Murray and passing
the burden of improvement onto responsible individuals. The 1996 welfare "reform" law
crystalized these changes, reversing AFDC and its underlying concept, no-fault entitlement, and
the impact on Blacks was devastating. The Clintons were staunch advocates but somehow this
association didn't erode Hilary's huge support in the Black community in 2016. Any gains for
those who got the point and took personal responsibility after this change and tried to work
the market to their advantage were wiped out by the effects of the 2008 Great Recession. As
recent studies show, this event severely impacted Blacks, deflating their capital assets --
mainly property values through the housing market crash -- to a level not seen for many since
the pre-Movement years, widening the wealth gap with whites.
Mara Gay claims that "despite enormous progress," referring to South Carolina, "poverty in
this still largely rural region, for Southerners of every race, remains crushing." Enormous
progress for what strata of society? Is every race being crushed equally? Progress and regress
exist here in a kind of murky relationship. Who are the winners? If there is only a
generalized, abstract poverty, then perhaps Blacks just see themselves as part of one big
unfortunate swatch of misery and there's no need for a special candidate to articulate their
issues. Biden will do just fine!
Do the Blacks who voted for Biden really believe that rights, and possibly a stronger
Affirmative Action, will get them better jobs and health care and education and housing, what
polls say they want? The Supreme Court certainly weakened provisions of the rights legislation,
ironically during the Obama years, and that needs to be redressed. But rights for individuals
or a group need to be expressed with the potential of producing results. They could be in the
1960s when the kind of liberal Democrats Sanders espouses controlled Congress and our society
was an ascendant, center-left one, mostly sympathetic with improving the plight of the
underprivileged. Now structural change needs to accompany the expression of rights and
compensate for this loss of sympathy in a society that is much more unequal generally, and
especially within racial and ethnic groups.
A romantic attachment to the legacy and concept of civil rights in a vacuum allows the
discourse of identity politics to capture the critical energy of race. The times demand the
opposite, the link between rights and social justice; the gathering of all identities,
affiliations, and dispositions together to discuss the common structure that can overcome
division and artificial barriers. Class is such a structure. The delink of rights and social
justice converts to the denial of the realities of class.
For Chris Hedges the power elite is always eager to keep discussions within the confines
of special discourses like race, gender, religion, immigration, gun control, freedom, etc.,
because these issues are "used to divide the public, to turn neighbor against neighbor, to fuel
virulent hatreds and antagonisms," and they divert attention from class, the concept they fear
the most ("Class: The Little Word the Elites Want You to Forget," Truthdig ,
3/3/20).
There's a striking inequality gap within the Black community that's been widening for some
time, as William Julius Wilson's research has amply documented for nearly half a century. The
failure of rights activism has left many in the lower and working classes behind as the
educated professional class has separated itself from them and achieved significant success.
It's interesting that nearly 9% of Blacks voted for Trump in 2016. Why have so few of the Black
masses been absorbed a half century after Martin Luther King's death? The inclusion of more
from the lower strata will need to break down the not-very-visible structural barriers to
mobility that divide and exclude. Something like the pro-active re-structuring pushed by the
Rainbow Coalition, Jesse Jackson's multi-racial, structural response to the widening of the
inequality gap in his 1980s run for the presidency, which was clearly the revival of MLK's late
expression of the link between race and class. The distance between King's social justice
vision and activism and the rights-rhetoric infused activity of today is remarkable. It's
interesting that Jackson recently endorsed Sanders.
The opinion-shaping machine is strong enough to encourage Blacks to overwhelmingly
support Biden who pushes virtually nothing related to class or structural change. Further
evidence of this strength came recently in an interchange between Michael Eric Dyson, a
persistent critic of the Obama legacy, and Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, a staunch Sanders supporter
(DemocracyNow. 3/16/20). Dyson has endorsed Biden, a surprise to many progressives given his
critical history of mainstream liberalism. His reasoning is curious.
It's not that he feels Biden is or has become a progressive. It's about strategy and
pragmatism. He believes Biden can win, and Sanders can't, and this is all important given the
dire situation in the Black community. There's a hint it seems that Biden could be in the
early stages of conversion to progressive ideas, or at least perhaps is a latently aggressive
liberal and spirited supporter of the Black cause who can make change if elected because he --
and the Democratic Party? -- have been pushed to the left by the Sanders "revolution" begun in
2016. Biden has the best "methodology" and will be able to "deploy" it.
A staunch advocate of structural change, Dyson now seems to be saying that it can be
accomplished through Biden who will have the authority and desire to marshal the necessary
forces and interests together to build alliances, forge a consensus. It's true that Biden's
public relations gestures -- considered separate from his debate focus -- have passed the
desire test. He's come out liberal and even progressive-sounding on most issues, pushed there
perhaps by Sanders' momentum as Dyson suggests ("Joe Biden's Positions on the Issues,"
Politico , 3/5/20).
But what will he forge a consensus about? In the process of marshaling forces together will
he become a converted progressive, pumped up by his successes as an alliance builder? Will he
support Medicare for All from having witnessed the effects of our health care system straining
under pressure from the coronavirus? Will he be able to convince Sanders' supporters to come
along and bide their time as this -- utopian -- process evolves?
The rift would seem too wide to bridge. Trusting elites to change the system from the
top down, persuading members of their power bloc to do the right thing, is a gamble given all
the betrayals from the Democratic party over the past few generations.
... ... ...
John O'Kane teaches writing at Chapman University. His next book, From Hyperion to
Erebus, is due out this year from Wapshott Press.
Tulsi on mask shortage-"It's hard to imagine how this could be
happening in America." Really? You're surprised the corrupt two-party that you insist we choose between got us here?
Andrew Yang just
admitted that he endorsed Biden cause he got offered a position in his cabinet should Biden become president. Tulsi of
course would never do that XD .
I wonder how
strong the Progressive movement would've been if careerists like Gabbard and Warren stayed away and the front was
unified from the beginning.
When Jimmy started his live video the day she announced
supporting Biden, I said to myself "I bet anything he blames Bernie for her dropping out and supporting Biden." Low
and behold, he did.
6:56
"which is something I always said I would do btw,
that I would support the eventual democratic nominee" Am I living in a parallel dimension? The primary is not
finished yet, you can still endorse Biden when it will be over if he wins the primary but endorse Bernie for the
moment. Is it that hard? Ho right, I forgot, the primary is rigged and we all know that Biden the senile kid diddler
and liar will be the nominee one way or another. Fucked up, but she's not helping. She probably knows she'll be
kicked out of politics if she does not endorse biden and cares more about her career than doing the right thing.
War is ingrained into US society, "Thankyou for your
service" says it all. Heroes in America are obviously those who go to war at the behest of the zionists and the
corporations.
"The scope of
the effects of this are difficult to comprehend at this time..." This is truly amazing that someone in the government
has the audacity to blame a virus for people's inability to "make rent" when it was them that created the current
hysteria and panic. There is a pandemic. I agree. But so far counting all of the cases that we know about, it is no
where even close to the season flue that we see every year! And the government is shutting down businesses! It is a
shame that they are using the current situation to further the idea that people are dependent on the government to
survive! How far we as a nation and a people have fallen from the ideals that created this nation in the first place! I
am disgusted!
Like Bernie,
Tulsi is just another TWO FACED Globalist Presstitute. Tulsi says her platform is to stop regime change and bring are
troops home! Why does she then endorse Biden who supports regime change and keeping troops in the middle east? Tulsi
says she does this to defeat Trump but Trump campaigned to stop regime change and bring are troops home!
Tulsi betrayed her supporters by endorsing Biden. She essentially unconditionally capitulated tot he neocon wing of the Dems. In
this sense she proved to a be a turncoat. To me, she's a sell-out. her campaign filled with military-based patriotism, flag-waving,
and pledge-of-allegiance rah rah USA cheerleading. It gave me the creeps, quite frankly.
Is happening during a time when Trump has the bullhorn everyday during a financial crisis and a terrifying pandemic while Joe has
abdicated his role as the presumptive Democratic nominee to counter the Presidents narrative and reassure the American people . The
optics are bizarre and politically unsustainable. Into to this growing narrative, the principled Tulsi ends her campaign and endorses
who? The missing Joe. The timing of her endorsement is peculiar indeed.
Also was she threatened or coerced in any way? Because earlier in the vid she certainly implies there was no way she could fight
the DNC's version of City Hall.
The first time I saw Tulsi Gabbard in action was during a 2018 House Veteran' Affairs Health subcommitee hearing on Capitol Hill.
She she was going up one side of a bland-faced Veterans Affairs (VA) representative and down the other for stalling on burn pits
help for sick veterans. My head jerked up as I was banging out notes on my laptop. Up until then it had been the usual staid affair
-- VA bureaucrats mewling the same old pablum about tasks forces and blue ribbon studies -- meanwhile an untold number of vets had
been exposed to toxins from the burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had been warning of irrevocable health effects, even dying,
since 2007. Then the air in the packed hearing room started to crackle. We don't want to hear about your studies, the Democratic
Congresswoman from Hawaii said, her voice piercing the room. We want action.
I scrambled to Google her. This young, capable congresswoman cutting straight through the bullshit was an Iraq War veteran! No
wonder. As a journalist covering the swamp since 1999 it was easy to fall into jaded complacency about partisan politicians grandstanding
on their hobby horses with no longterm interest in fixing anything. But recent veterans who had become members of Congress seemed
to address their new roles like they would a tactical mission. In her case, it was veterans' health, and there was nothing inauthentic
in how she was approaching the witnesses in front of her, or the issue at hand.
In the intervening years she became known as a non-interventionist and independent thinker who was skeptical of her own party's
embrace of the national security status quo and the military industrial complex. By the time she launched her campaign for the Democratic
presidential nomination and started talking about ending endless "regime change wars" on the debate stage, the Washington skeptics
and non-interventionists on the Right, particularly at this magazine, had already taken notice. TAC writers like
Scott Ritter and
Daniel Larison became
a vanguard here against the establishment's spiteful and petty fusillade over her diplomatic visit to Bashar Assad, her deviation
from the party's talking points on Russia, and even Trump.
Yet when she delivered the K.O. against Kamala Harris
in the second Democratic debate, cooly pointing out the California Senator's hypocrisy on criminal justice, it was the most satisfying
moment up until then or since. If forced to watch every single moment of every single debate this season it would be worth every
second just to see Gabbard make Harris twist in the wind and eventually deflate her candidacy with that one brilliant stroke. Ditto
for her later
take-down of Pete Buttigieg, a candidate using his veteran status in a completely different way, as TAC's Gil Barndollar (also
a recent vet)
points
out . This was the steely focus and yes, righteousness, that I saw in that House hearing room in 2018, and served her well on
the stage among her political adversaries, who didn't care that she checked all the boxes (a woman of color, the first Samoan-American
and Hindu to run for president). She was "not of the body" when it came to the party line. She would never belong.
It served her well when she
called out Madame Hillary, though that likely brought the death knell to her hopes for the Democratic nod. If she hadn't drawn
the full force of the bee hive before, attacking the Queen Bee proved fatal.
She left the race officially today having performed well off-the-radar in the early and recent primaries. But unlike many of
the puppets who called themselves candidates in this dreary Democratic display, Gabbard leaves with her pride, her integrity, and
her independence intact. Some may balk at her endorsement of Biden, a man who voted for the war that she despises, who serves as
a symbol of the partisan corruption she had pledged to overcome. She has her reasons. We just hope she won't fade away, as she won't
be running for re-election in the fall.
What has she left us? Proof that there are politicians who make "transpartisan" seem real and worthy, and not just another faddish
concept to be abused for political gain. She leaves us with the sense that not all pols are in it for the power, but for weightier
goals, like veterans' health, and bringing an end to an entrenched, hubristic foreign policy that sends young men and women like
Gabbard into wars we cannot win. She was the only one to bring a personal and unyielding take on that to the debate stage and into
our living rooms, and for that, we should be grateful.
Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, executive editor, has been writing for TAC for the last decade, focusing on national security, foreign
policy, civil liberties and domestic politics. She served for 15 years as a Washington bureau reporter for FoxNews.com, and at WTOP
News in Washington from 2013-2017 as a writer, digital editor and social media strategist. She has also worked as a beat reporter
at Bridge News financial wire (now part of Reuters) and Homeland Security Today, and as a regular contributor at Antiwar.com. A native
Nutmegger, she got her start in Connecticut newspapers, but now resides with her family in Arlington, Va.
Her statement endorsing Biden proves all this about propaganda about her being "trans partisan" whatever that means, and not out
for personal power are false. Gabbard clearly still wants a future career connected to the Democratic establishment.
Tulsi destroyed Kamala Harris' campaign and gave the antiwar movement a voice in the Democratic primary. She never had a chance
in hell of being the nominee, but she played a weak hand with wits, courage and a strong heart. In a better party--country--she'd
be one of the top tier candidates.
Instead she'll have to settle for being a hero to folks like me.
The Daily Kos crowd hated her guts ("Fake social liberal! Dictator lover! Trump appeaser!") and aggressively raised funds for
her primary opponent, so I'm not sure her House seat was all that safe for her anymore.
Reagan's criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty got him a rebuke from the Duke himself. John Wayne wrote a letter to Reagan
calling him a liar over his criticism of the treaty. Not sure how the spat became public, but that was one of the first things
that started warming my heart towards Wayne.
She probably should have dropped out after New Hampshire and endorsed Sanders. Frankly, Sanders should have been working behind
the scenes to get a joint Yang/Gabbard endorsement before or after Nevada. Not that she is well known outside of academic or feminist
circles, but rolling up their endorsement with that of black feminist Barbara Smith before South Carolina might have blunted the
Pete/Amy/Beto bit of political theater for Biden a little bit, if not the Clyburn endorsement.
1) Tulsi started going off the rails halfway through primary and her position on gay rights was going to be a problem for liberal
attacks along with her continued defending Assad in general. (We should stay out of Syria years ago but Assad is terrible.)
2) I suspect it helped Reagan in 1980 with criticism of Carter's Panama Canal Treaty with most voters. Yea he took some flack
for it but it helped Reagan criticizing Carter's foreign policy weakness.
3) I see Sanders problem closer to Matt Yglesias view that Sanders had 30 - 35% of the Party voters and needed to do more to
win the other 65%. He was over estimated his WWC support from 2016 (as opposed to anti-HRC vote when Primary was practically over)
and Sanders was going to have problems with candidate winnowing.
And Sanders really failed to gain support from Southern African-American voters who led Biden's comeback.
Assad MAY be terrible to ISIS sympathizers, but he also doesn't support the genocide of Syria's Christian,Shia,Ismaili,Druze and
Alawite minorities. The genocidal al-Qaeda/ISIS affiliates have ravaged Syria's minority populations while getting support from
Israel. Whenever AQ/ISIS are getting overrun by the Christian-led Syrian Arab Army, Israel is always there to provide air support
to Al Qaeda and ISIS. Tulsi, of course is a big supporter of Israel and does not address Israel's role in the war against Syria's
minority populations. She is comfortable with her hypocritical stance.
I don't remember Gabbard ever "defending" Assad politically or personally. At most, I thought she expressed support for his government
in its military conflict with ISIS and the Al-Nusra Front.
Don't disagree with you about Sanders. I do believe he was the strongest general election candidate, but the majority of the
Democratic electorate has clearly moved back to the center and a desire for continuity with the Clinton/Obama/Biden past, which
is utter foolishness and stupidity on their part.
I don't need to know anything more than she endorsed establishment Joe over the Hill Biden, the warmonger's warmonger. None of
their professional pols are ever going to do anything but cave to the swamp of the status quo. Oligarchy Uber Alles. She just
nailed the lid shut on her supposed integrity. Hey, Bernie's next.
And coronavirus is of no matter, except to use as an excuse to get Donald Trump, who really did call out and try to stop some
wars, to no avail. History is full of lying politicians who got elected by promising to keep us out of wars, then started them
as soon as the votes were counted.
Gabbard is the most exciting politician in a generation imo. She is consistently highly strategic in her moves, and kept her antiwar
platform in the public eye on a tiny budget as far as was feasible while the caucus season still had life and attention. It is
clear the corporate Dems are firmly in control and have cleverly manouvered Biden to be the face of the DNC. With that scenario
and likely no convention or media for the next few months it was smart, as the only life long Democrat in the field, to 'support'
Biden (confounding the brainwashed Russia/Syria/India conspiracy theorists) as the candidate, just as she vowed to do at the start
of her campaign.
The battle is over. the corporate Dems won, but will likely lose the war to Trump in November. It's possible the entire aged field
of political operatives that control the 'beehive' will be history by this time next year, and as the DNC begins to reform, root
out venal corruption and reconstitute Gabbard's star may well rise again.
The other distinct possibility is that the oligarch Bloomberg will replace Mrs Clinton as the majordomo of the DNC and with his
Hawkfish Cambridge Analytica style machine will steamroller some sort of quasi fascist party into power post Covid19 low key (I
hope) martial law. Bloomberg was clever to inject 44 million - pocket lint in his 55 billion - just before super Tuesday to destroy
Sanders the strawman social democrat while standing down other corporate puppet candidates.
I hope Gabbard doesn't become a TV bobblehead like Yang. That would be dispiriting.
Peace.
nice article but the title is misleading. What she actually did was give a voice to the voiceless, and changed the dialogue
in America regarding foreign policy and interventionalist wars. The way our leaders think about "regime change" wars has shifted
greatly in part because of the efforts of Tulsi Gabbard. Her continuing to highlight the extremely crucial areas of corruption
and misgovernance that are ruining our country is what she has, is, and will continue to do for us.
This puff piece won't do. Tulsi has chosen to stay with a gang that has no use for her. "She has her reasons" for endorsing
Biden. Folks have their reasons for doing a lot of things. Tulsi could have dispensed with this nonsense of a Presidential run
and been the leader of a movement that would have posed a challenge to these failing and merging political parties. She may
be inspiring on a personal level but, in the immortal words of The Four Tops, "It's the same old song, just a different feeling
since you been gone."
I was sad to see so many hit pieces this past year portraying Tulsi as some sort of Trump appeaser or traitor who would meet with
Assad etc. As a peacemaker, she stood very little chance in the 2020 race. As a female Hindu surfer war veteran peacenik who could
sing John Lennon songs with her partner, she was so strikingly unique that people didn't have a box to put her in. With veteran
health being one of her primary concerns, she would have been ideal for the age of Corona virus. I can't imagine her disbanding
the pandemic response team two years before the worst pandemic in 500 years! Thank you Kelly Vlahos for paying tribute to this
remarkable leader. Let's hope Tulsi is far from finished. 2020 is going to be a year when America is taken out to the woodshed
and taught a humbling lesson about mortality, the frailty of life and the need to respect the whole planet. Tulsi might be just
the person to lead the country as it rises up from the ashes.
Sounds quite innocuous, even virtuous, right? Except, you do not mention she is also a supporter of Hindoo Fascism/Nationalism,
as a supporter of the fascist Indian organisation called RSS. Just recently she tried to whitewash the muslim genocide (even if
small level this time) in New Delhi, with her dissembling about some self-perceived "Hinduphobia."
I suppose, as long as it does not affect whites and christians and westerners, her hindoo fascism is of little consequence
to you? Let them "moozlims" worry about such things, yeah?
Those disbursements to wage earners are vital for the social cohesion to remain in place.
I thought Tulsi Gabbard championing that minimum basic income strategy was essential as
well.
I empathies totally with USians that are trapped in the vulgar exploitative nightmare
of the usury in that country . Debt Jubilee for all under $100,000 income would be a
start. But that might create a vulgar backlash as well.
The naked ferocity of capitalism in the USA is truly a fearsome thing.
Gabbard is angling for the VP position as Biden mentioned he's looking for a woman as a
running mate. She better hope Biden remember what he said. I wonder what Biden's criteria for
his candidates?
Hmm...
"... "Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading," ..."
"... "Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks." ..."
"... "stomach churning," ..."
"... "For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this," ..."
"... "Richard Burr had critical information that might have helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself." ..."
"... "If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest," ..."
"... "calling for immediate investigations" ..."
"... "for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading laws." ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
In a rare moment of bipartisanship, commenters from all sides have demanded swift punishment for US
senators who dumped stock after classified Covid-19 briefings. Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard has called
for criminal prosecution.
As chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Burr (R-North Carolina) has received daily
briefings on the threat posed by Covid-19 since January. Burr insisted to the public that America was
ready to handle the virus, but sold up to $1.5 million in stocks on February 13, less than a week
before the stock market nosedived, according to Senate
filings
. Immediately before the sale, Burr wrote an
op-ed
assuring Americans that their government is
"better prepared than ever
" to handle
the virus.
After the sale, NPR
reported
that he told a closed-door meeting of North Carolina business leaders that the virus
actually posed a threat
"akin to the 1918 pandemic."
Burr does not dispute the NPR report.
In a tweet on Saturday, former 2020 presidential candidate and Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard called for
criminal investigations.
"Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated and prosecuted for insider trading,"
she wrote.
"Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks."
Congress/staff who dumped stocks after private briefings on impending
coronavirus epidemic should be investigated & prosecuted for insider trading (the STOCK Act). It
is illegal & abuse of power. Members of Congress should not be allowed to own stocks.
https://t.co/rbVfJxrk3r
Burr was not the only lawmaker on Capitol Hill to take precautions, it was reported. Fellow
Intelligence Committee member Dianne Feinstein (D-California) and her husband sold off more than a
million dollars of shares in a biotech company five days later, while Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe (R) made a
smaller sale around the same time. Both say their sales were routine.
Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R-Georgia) attended a Senate Health Committee briefing on the outbreak on
January 24. The very same day, she began offloading stock, dropping between $1.2 and $3.1 million in
shares over the following weeks. The companies whose stock she sold included airlines, retail outlets,
and Chinese tech firm Tencent.
She did, however, invest in cloud technology company Oracle, and Citrix, a teleworking company
whose value has increased by nearly a third last week, as social distancing measures forced more and
more Americans to work from home. All of Loeffler's transactions were made with her husband, Jeff
Sprecher, CEO of the New York Stock Exchange.
Meanwhile, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (New York) and Ilhan Omar (Minnesota) have joined the clamor of
voices demanding punishment. Ocasio-Cortez
described
the sales as
"stomach churning,"
while Omar reached across the aisle to side
with Fox News' Tucker Carlson in calling for Burr's resignation.
"For a public servant it's pretty hard to imagine many things more immoral than doing this,"
Carlson said during a Friday night monolog.
"Richard Burr had critical information that might have
helped the people he is sworn to protect. But he hid that information and helped only himself."
As of Saturday, there are nearly 25,000 cases of Covid-19 in the US, with the death toll heading
towards 300. Now both sides of the political aisle seem united in disgust at the apparent profiteering
of Burr, Loeffler, and Feinstein.
Right-wing news outlet Breitbart
savaged
Burr for voting against the STOCK Act in 2012, a piece of legislation that would have
barred members of Congress from using non-public information to profit on the stock market. At the
same time, a host of Democratic figures - including former presidential candidates
Andrew Yang
and
Kirsten Gillibrand
- weighed in with their own criticism too.
"If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move is to adjust your
stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public interest,"
Yang
tweeted on Friday.
If you find out about a nation-threatening pandemic and your first move
is to adjust your stock portfolio you should probably not be in a job that serves the public
interest.
Watchdog group Common Cause has filed complaints with the Justice Department, the Securities and
Exchange Commission and the Senate Ethics Committee
"calling for immediate investigations"
of
Burr, Loeffler, Feinstein and Inhofe
"for possible violations of the STOCK Act and insider trading
laws."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
Not surprising. They only want the kickbacks not any actual work. Here's a good lesson for
that squad - now they can witness how the dimwits work for the people! Tlaib is stepping up.
Who will be next? Anyone? Anyone?
should just spend every minute of his time saying "where was Joe hiding during the pandemic?
How are you going to lead a country by hiding during an emergency, Joe?".
who make profits as well. I cannot remember exactly when insider trading for
them became legal but it should be no surprise to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention
that they're ALL doing it. That is one reason, at least in my semi-educated opinion, they did
not go after Trump for emoluments during Shampeachment, because THEY ALL DO IT.
That goes all the way to the White House, no doubt.
From comments "so that is who Tulsi endorses after talking about how bad they are? Jesus on a
cracker give me and effing break, Tulsi. Hondorus, Syria and Ukraine and endorsing the regime
change in Egypt. "
"[Looks like] ... blowing off her tiny support base in favor of whatever she has gotten was
worth the price to her. Will have to check the next library book sale (postponed at the moment)
for a cheap copy of Marlowe's Dr. Faustus or Goethe's Faust and send it to her. (She's not worth
buying a new copy for.)
@Jen
(have no interest in viewing her video because I have an autonomic gag reflex to liars)
The comments there make me feel a bit better. Looks as if Tulsi has lost all of her
supporters, funders, and voters, and they aren't coming back.
A sample:
Christopher Brunner:
Imagine basing your whole campaign on ending regime change wars and then ending it by
endorsing the man who voted for the Iraq War instead of standing on her principles and
endorsing the person who voted AGAINST regome change wars
Dash
Tulsi: "I will do everything I can to stop these shameful regime change wars."
Tulsi: "I now completely support one of the principle architects of America's shameful
regime change wars."
Tulsi: "Why don't you all love me anymore?"
Okay, a few are saying that Sanders is weak on regime change wars, etc. True enough but he
has a long track record of voting no on them when the chips are down.
I think it is near impossible that Biden would pick her as VP, despite this strange
endorsement. The Democrat establishment and the borg fiercely oppose her, and with Biden as
President and the coronavirus around, there is a real chance this time that a VP pick will
have to take over power from a dead or otherwise incapacitated President.
The move does not make much sense to me except as an "I surrender, at least for this
election cycle" message, I don't see Tulsi gaining any material benefit from this over
endorsing Sanders. The establishment will not suddenly start to like her again because of
this.
I also seriously doubt this assessment of Tulsi about Biden:
"I know that he has a good heart and is motivated by his love for our country and the
American people."
But, unless something has changed of which I am not aware, Warren closed down her campaign
without endorsing anyone. Why not Gabbard? Not impressed by this move.
Maybe she thinks this is, as eenginneer proposed above, playing the long game. I don't see
how that works, unless abject surrender on essentials (such as the willingness to contest the
war/regime change ploy amply on display with Biden & ilk) makes an impression on The Blob
that she can be relied upon to do likewise if she ever is entrusted with executive powers.
But infliction of such horrors as those brought about by the dismemberment of Libya are
scarcely indications of Biden having a good heart (or even a foresightful nature concerning
consequences).
What the US needs is an end to these abjectly stupid actions, not a new lease on life for
them. So, the more I think on this, and in consideration of her previously professing a
principled stand in this issue, this is a deal-breaker for me, fully as bad as Sanders'
actively working for the Hildabeast's election in 2016, making me question her sincerity in
general.
It is past time to put the kibosh on the imperial fantasy; stand up and be counted or
slink away.
Mystifying and dispiriting. Maybe "they" finally got something on her. Alternatively, did
she get any sort of contentment out of Joe in return? If she did will he be able to/want
to remember it come November 4? There's no chance the "organs" sector of the deep state would
take Tulsi-as-Veep lying down. Or any significant foreign policy or national security
position for that matter. She may think by endorsing Biden She'd at least partway move back
into the good graces of the Democratic Party establishment, but that's a false hope. They'll
never trust her again. If she'd kept her endorsement powder dry, even though she'd get no MSM
coverage going forward (not the vanishingly small amount she got as a candidate), more than a
few of the non-MSM platforms, video and otherwise, that have in some cases millions of
readers and viewers, would have been happy to have her on frequently. She'll still get some
of that exposure but not much. She may get some MSM stops in the next few days, but that will
be it.
Biden says: "Tulsi Gabbard has put her life on the line in service of this country and
continues to serve with honor today. I'm grateful to have her support and look forward to
working with her to restore honor and decency to the White House."
Tulsi would bring in some republicans but Biden won't choose because he's a puppet of the
borg and they thrive on the chaos created by our military interventions. The LSMFT community
doesn't like Tulsi for the unforgivable sin of speaking out against gay marriage as a
teen--she wasn't born with the progressive purity of heart. Then there's Assad. The media
ignored her visit with the orthodox priest in Aleppo who after its recapture by the SAA
praised Assad for saving them from the jahadis. The feminists resent Tulsi for being pretty.
All these groups prefer Lady Macbeth be the one to catch Joe when he falls.
I suspect the DNC and associated party grandees looked at the COVID situation and leant
heavily on candidates to back the front runner, so avoiding having their supporters
congregate at rallies or a brokered convention. That the front runner happened to be who they
wanted to see as their candidate surely helped.
I saw that yesterday. I don't know who Kai Gabbard was responding to and he has since
removed that Facebook comment. He also admitted he doesn't know the exact nature of his
sister's relationship with Sanders. Here's his original comment.
"Thank you for your kind words sir," the comment reads. "Bernie has treated my sister like
sh*t all the way through this. She has tried to endorse him again and he has refused her
support. Whoever he's getting his advice from has done a terrible job."
"You go ahead keep talking about however you want, but know this. She is just going to
continue being independent and keep fighting for us. Bernie isn't the man me and Tulsi once
supported 100 percent. I don't know what happened to him. He's refused to take the fight to
the establishment like Tulsi continues to do. Aloha to you and yours."
Who knows what happened between Bernie and Tulsi. Like I said, I was surprised she
endorsed old Joe over old Bernie. She's pragmatic and independent. She has demonstrated an
ability to work in a bipartisan manner without demonizing anyone. We need a lot more like
her.
I'm also partial to the aloha spirit. I thoroughly enjoyed my three and a half years in
Hawaii. For two of those years I spent a long weekend every month with C Company, 1/299th
Infantry on Maui. I spent another year working fairly closely with the local pig hunters and
pakalolo growers in the mountains surrounding my RECONDO school in the Kahuku Mountains. I
experienced aloha and ohana rather than anti-haoli discrimination. If Tulsi can bring that
spirit to the rest of the US, I'm all for it.
Gabbard endorsement doesn't surprise me. Her claim to fame is that she speaks truthfully
about our mideast adventures...and? Her domestic politics mirror the growing dingbat
coalition. I would say that she is a poor man's Ron Paul but that wouldn't be fair to
Ron.
He had the integrity not to endorse the detestable Pierre Delecto.
'Hairy-Legs' Joe: I'm excited to present my running mate, Tally Gourd- What? No- Gabby Ward-
I mean the next Vice Governor of the United States, Wally Gizzard!
Interestingly, the CFR membership rolls contain a one Gabbard, Tulsi; no Obiden Bama,
however.
Tulsi was under no obligation to endorse right away even if she signed a contract agreeing to
support the Nominee, besides, there is no nominee yet. Warren did not endorsed anybody yet, and
Bernie is still in the race.
tulsi is pro aipac, anti BDS, signed a legally binding document to be blue no matter who, and
just endorsed a neoliberal war monger who launched 6 of the 8 regime change wars we are
currently waging to be our next president.
THIS IS WHAT CONTROLLED OPPOSITION GATE KEEPING SHILLS DO. SHES NIKKI HALEY IN A
PROGRESSIVE CLOWNSUIT.
Sander wasn't in the 2016 and 2020 races to change things, only to give the appearance
of seeking radical change, what a grassroots revolution alone could possibly achieve.
Lots of people are behaving as if they hadn't heard which "Party" Gabbard and Sanders were
running for. They are working for the Single Party; which wing of it is irrelevant, just as
irrelevant as any nuances among its different people. I just don't get why the word "any"
should be unclear -- to anyone.
"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which
are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies...Noam Chomsky
By supporting a warhawk, she is literally a traitor. ALL this talk of being against the wars and "my brothers and sisters"
all total bs because she was offered a golden ticket. Efffffff her.
How is it possible to morph from a Tulsi, to a Tulsigieg so fast?? How can she lie with that straight face, and say Biden has
a " good heart "??? I will never, ever trust her again. Democratic Party uses corrupt people without a backbone, and rigged electronic
vote machines.
So, she is another Warren. She didn't really believe what she was saying, she just saw an opportunity to become known/gain
power by surfing the progressive wave with a plan to leverage that notoriety/support.
Christo Aivalis 20.3K subscribers Earlier
today, Tulsi Gabbard announced she was dropping out of the presidential primary and endorsing Joe Biden for President. Many Tulsi
supporters felt betrayed by this move, but it fits the ideological similarities between Tulsi and Biden. It also shows that like
with Andrew Yang, Gabbard's anti-establishment image was only superficial, and it shows that Bernie Sanders is the only one meaningfully
challenging the political, social, and economic status quo It also shows that those neoliberal democrats who attacked Tulsi as a
Russian Asset seem fine with her now, as long as she falls in line. I wonder how Jimmy Dore is feeling?
I thought she was anti-war, yet she supports Biden, what a shame, I can't believe it, she was so fake all along, it's like
a bad movie twist... is there even one decent politician in USA, besides Bernie?
It's a bummer. She really had so much potential especially after she endorsed Bernie the first time. Now Idk. Williamson is
the only one who genuinely went to the most progressive candidate without hesitating.
#DemocracyDiesInDarkness
Miss Gabbard
shame on you, you spoke with human empathy, love and decent understanding towards human experience, you disappointed a
lot of your fellow human beings by endorsing a coward you are now apart of the evil axis of evil elite class.
S
hame on
you,, may the bird of paradise look down upon you, shame on you,, you lie , ,now join the elite and eat sponge cake and
drink champagne walk the halls of injustice,
Hawaii
congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out of the 2020 presidential race to endorse her
ideological opposite, establishment darling Joe Biden. It's political suicide – for her,
and for the idea of a progressive Democrat. Gabbard's decision to bow out on Thursday may have
made sense from an electoral perspective – with just two delegates from her native
American Samoa, she wasn't exactly a serious challenger to the much-more-popular Biden or even
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whom she supported in the 2016 race.
Shut out of the primary debates by a Democratic Party establishment afraid she might do to
the frontrunner what she had done to California Senator Kamala Harris, whose juggernaut
campaign began taking on water after Gabbard exposed her heinous record live on stage, Gabbard
had little hope of an eleventh-hour electoral rally.
But while swearing fealty to the presumed nominee may have scored her some points among her
establishment critics, most had a clear ulterior motive, using her exit as further leverage to
pressure Sanders to drop out.
Even Tulsi Gabbard has the dignity to drop out and endorse Biden. Your move, @BernieSanders
.
At the same time, Gabbard's erstwhile supporters feel betrayed, and justifiably so. A
candidate who built her campaign on opposition to the business-as-usual Democratic policies of
cloaking foreign military intervention in humanitarian jargon, Gabbard instead called for
taking the trillions spent on the slaughter and plunder of hopelessly-outmatched Middle Eastern
nations and using that money to rebuild the crumbling American homeland. It was a message that
resonated across the partisan divide, even attracting some disillusioned 2016 Trump supporters
who had voted for the president based on his promise to end the endless wars in Syria and
Afghanistan, then watched in horror as he stepped up the bombing and tried to open another
front in Iran.
For the young Hawaiian to throw her support behind Biden – a man with nearly a 50-year
track record of supporting Wall Street, the military-industrial complex, Big Pharma and the
rest of the ruling establishment " because he has a good heart " is spitting in the face
of the hundreds of thousands of supporters who have contributed to her campaign, made phone
calls on her behalf, packed town halls, and otherwise poured their precious time and money into
supporting a long-shot candidate.
So Tulsi Gabbard endorses Biden? I have lost all respect for her.P.S. Don't drop out
Bernie. #NeverBiden
It's no surprise they aren't taking it well. How are voters supposed to trust any future "
progressive " candidates after such turncoat maneuvers from not only Gabbard but
Sanders, who in 2016 turned on a dime to stump for establishment pick Hillary Clinton after a
coterie of unelected superdelegates declared her the winner following a primary process which
leaked emails revealed beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rigged? Gabbard's political seppuku
should force progressive Democrats to come to terms with the fact that there is no room for
reform within their party.
On the bright side, those same pundits who screamed themselves hoarse warning that Gabbard
was working for Vladimir Putin to sow discord among the American electorate and swing the
nation to Trump now have to quietly revise their apocalyptic visions. Will they admit the
congresswoman is not the Russian wrecking ball they claimed she was, or will they carry the
fantasy to the finish line and say Gabbard has infected Biden's campaign with Russian 'malign
influence'?
Bernie Sanders is not a political candidate. He is an evangelical Socialist ideologue.
He has no personality to battle opponents. He makes proclamations of his ideology.
He has never "fought back".
He has no instinct for debating. He believes, therefore, in his mind, he is correct. He
expects others to follow his lead.
He has never been a real candidate. He was a distraction, a Pied Piper, for dopey students
and young people who latched onto his notions.
When you offer free rewards and your turnout goes down, you are over as a "candidate".
Biden is brain damaged. He is a very dangerous stalking horse for the return of the Magic
Negro, Obama, and the sociopathic Hillary Clinton.
If Biden wins in November, expect more war and a very long recession. Social chaos will
look racial, but it will be a battle for the Second Amendment, Free Speech, and Traditional
Values versus the Soulless Liberalism intended to establish Feudalism 'round the globe.
Everything in the Dem Primary and Convention is rigged. Bernie never had a chance. He
could care less. He never expected to be President. He just wanted big crowds to listen to
his Polemics.
The guy is 78, what makes you think he cares about Vermont ... trying for the first
100-year-old Senator? He's never been able to do anything in Congress anyway. His big shot
was spoiled by the Wicked Witch of the East. He would be President now, if not for her.
Bernie has fought long and hard. Look at his record, he has fought and succeeded in
accomplishing more for the people than any other politician.
What everyone is assuming is that if Bern becomes an ugly asshole just like all the others
before him TPTB would allow him to be the candidate or god forbid the POTUS. NEVER gunna
happen!
There is only one way We The People can get the representation we need and want it to come
out and state in the clearest possible way that Dems and Repubs are serving the same masters
with the same basic agenda and represent one party. We must then form a new party and put
everything we have behind it. It has to be a radical revolution and Bernie has made it clear
that he will fight for all of us. Which by the way is exactly what all the top Dems are
saying we don't need. Him getting elected under existing conditions would change NOTHING and
he knows it. Forcing him to go
People who put all of the responsibility for achieving this on Bernies shoulders are
ignorant chicken shits that don't deserve anything better than Biden, Cliton, Trump.
#6 Bernie has a long standing deal with the Democrats to play nice or they will do
all they can to ruin him. What else explains his reluctance to go after Biden like he should
have earlier in the campaign? Either way, we will see what happens, maybe he will go after
him, maybe not. I think he won't. I hope he does.
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi. This is the only shot to thwart the
convention designs of the Dame Named Clinton.
Hey Bernie! Throw a Hail Tulsi Pass now!
Bernie absolutely will not fight. For the record, at Democrat Party platform meetings
in July 2016 he wouldn't put up the slightest fight against TPP . His position against
TPP had gained him many followers. Union heads who had been anti-TPP until then showed up and
were stongly pro-TPP as were Hillary and Obama:
"Bernie Sanders failed to get strong language opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership
inserted in the draft Democratic platform at a party meeting here Saturday....It was clear as
a string of trade union presidents lined up at the microphone to oppose the Sanders
amendments that his forces were outmatched.... (parag. 11)
The Obama administration supports it [TPP], and the desire to avoid embarrassing the
president carried the day, with the labor unions acting as a political shield for the White
House. Delegates twice Saturday morning voted down stronger opposition language as Sanders
supporters booed and chanted "sellout." Some eventually walked out of the meeting
entirely."...
The only topic on the 2020 election agenda should be that the US must be broken into
parts. The weapons dictatorship that runs the US won't be stopped any other way.
Bernie allowed Biden to co-opt his "message" on every point.
Even on his signature healthcare initiative, sheepdog Bernie rolled over. Bernie
should've/could've asked why we should trust that Biden would get a 'public option' when
Obama failed to do so (an Obama-Biden campaign promise).
Bernie also showed that he's got no interest in winning by failing to attack Biden on
character issues ( just as he wouldn't attack Hillary on character issues in 2016).
Any real candidate would've brought up Hunter Biden's dealings in Ukraine and China.
Bernie also pulled many punches, like:
No mention of the $50+ trillion dollars of off-shore money;
Biden's loyalty to Obama: a President who failed to deliver "Change You Can Believe
In";
Biden's connections to the MIC "swamp" - supporting a militaristic and belligerence
foreign policy that makes us less safe;
Democratic Party's failure to protect workers and the middle-class (Bernie often
talks about "the billionaires" but never talks about how they got to be so powerful in
America)
Democratic Party's failure to be representative: no people of color in the last few
debates!
Bernie's quixotic insurgency isn't anti-establishment. He's leading people into a dead end.
And hoping you won't notice.
!!
/div>
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not far
when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American language
defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 , Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Bernie is not there to be president, never was. his tribal mission is to dog herd the
progressives into voting for the lesser evil Judeo-Zionist DNC´s pick. the day is not
far when the name Sanders will have an entry in the common dictionary of the American
language defined as "mass deception".
Posted by: nietzsche1510 | Mar 16 2020 8:45 utc |
76
Willie @48 / 84
There's no need for Sanders to designate a Dauphin: at every election the Owners of the
Country trot out a shepherd dog, to bark the disgruntled people back to the fold, keeping
them from burning down the Democrat abomination down. And yes, the sheeple are just as stupid
as we think they are. Wallace, Mc Govern, Jackson, Kucinich, Sanders... the Owners always
have a sheepdog ready. No matter if heshehe is a well-meaning, sincere populist like Kucinich
or a warmongering imperialist buzztard like Sanders, or even worse, the sheepdog is the wolf
in person, like Obama, the stupid sheep keep obeying the dog and voting for more of the
same.
Because, see, their Hopium addiction has addled their brains. You just don't go to war
relying on heroin addicts; it's just as bad with those who need their daily dose of Hope
(when there is none.) They can't follow logic.
/div>
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality through
an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment political
job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of reasons 1. Some
are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even though
she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that. Let us
pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
#13 You are right, absolutely Tulsi would make mincemeat of Biden and the establishment
and Trump. They know it. But Bernie has surrounded himself with people who see reality
through an establishment lens, which means they look forward to a career in the establishment
political job market. They have convinced Bernie to ignore Tulsi because of a variety of
reasons 1. Some are neocons 2. Some are Hinduphobes 3. Some are both 4. The rest know
the establishment is dead set against Tulsi because she is a revolutionary. So even
though she would win easily if Bernie gave his support to Tulsi, I can't see him doing that.
Let us pray he does because at this point
we need a miracle to save us from either Trump, Biden, or some other establishment
lackey.
Well that's it Bernie is done and he made sure to s*** on his own movement as he stumbled off
the stage back to his 3 mansions. He had already lost with super Tuesday, but he had a chance
to save his legacy with a strong debate performance if he managed to squeeze some public
commitments out of Biden for his followers. Instead he meekly assented to Biden's coronation,
what was the point of the debate for Bernie's movement? they got nothing out of Biden, heck,
Biden even made a point of trashing Medical Care for all and demanding that all of Bernie's
people embrace him as their rightful king. Bernie's people got NOTHING from Biden and the
DNC, the will continue to get NOTHING from them until they show the DNC that they will
boycott the next election and make the DNC lose elections they would otherwise win. sure the
Democrats will blame them for Trump 2020, but the Democrats lost the moderates in 2000 but
they still came back to pander to them, time to make them pander to Bernie's people!
>Bernie Sanders has only ever been a clever tool to mobilize
> the young voters. Never designed to actually have a chance. Just whip up dreams
> Posted by: Jezabeel | Mar 16 2020 9:03 utc | 79
... and then crush the dreams so the dreamers drift away in disgust.
1. No one is talking about last night's debate because of the Coronavirus. It doesn't show
up on my 'Bing' homepage and there isn't even mention of it on the few liberal websites that
I visit except for Counterpunch and there was only one there.
"... Tomasky points out that Sanders, even if he were elected, would be unable to implement many of the programs that are part of his platform, that the best he'd get in terms of healthcare, for example, would be "a Bidenesque public option," meaning, I presume, and option such as Biden is advocating for now ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... The Daily Beast, ..."
"... The American Prospect, ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... New York Review of Books ..."
"... Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism ..."
"... The Corporate Coup d'Etat ..."
"... M.G. Piety teaches philosophy at Drexel University. She is the editor and translator of Soren Kierkegaard's Repetition and Philosophical Crumbs . Her latest book is: Ways of Knowing: Kierkegaard's Pluralist Epistemology . She can be reached at: [email protected] ..."
Just when I am starting to think that the New York Review of Books is not
irredeemably idiotic on political issues, they publish an article that is so conspicuously
incoherent and outrageously out of touch with the political climate in the U.S. that it is
destined to be anthologized in perpetuity in collections with "Clueless" in the title. The
article, " The Party Cannot
Hold ," by Michael Tomasky is about the current state of the Democratic party.
The current divide in the Democratic party, writes Tomasky, "is about capitalism -- whether
it can be reformed and remade to create the kind of broad prosperity the country once knew, but
without the sexism and racism of the postwar period, as liberals hope; or whether corporate
power is now so great that we are simply beyond that, as the younger socialists would argue,
and more radical surgery is called for."
Hmm, he's right, of course, that there is a faction of the Democratic party that wants to
reform capitalism, to remake it to create the kind of broad prosperity the country once knew.
The thing is, that faction is the "younger" one. The older, "liberal," Democrats have
concentrated almost all their efforts on getting rid of sexism and racism, laudable goals to be
sure, but oddly disconnected in the "liberal" imagination from economic issues.
Tomasky is also correct, of course, that a growing number of people in this country think
Capitalism in any form is simply morally bankrupt and that we need a new socioeconomic system
entirely. Few of these people, however, are registered Democrats. Most of them aren't even
Social Democrats since the overthrow of capitalism hasn't been a part of the Social Democratic
platform since the middle of the last century, at least according to Encyclopedia Britannica .
Indeed, Wikipedia defines " Social democracy " as "a political, social
and economic philosophy that supports economic and social interventions to promote social
justice within the framework of a liberal democratic polity and a capitalist- oriented
economy" (emphasis added). That Social Democrats are planning the overthrow of capitalism would
be disturbing news to the many capitalists countries in Europe where they are an important
political force.
Tomasky points out that Sanders, even if he were elected, would be unable to implement
many of the programs that are part of his platform, that the best he'd get in terms of
healthcare, for example, would be "a Bidenesque public option," meaning, I presume, and option
such as Biden is advocating for now , because as Americans know too well, politicians
almost never deliver on campaign promises. The electorate is nearly always forced to accept
some watered-down version of what they've been promised, if indeed, they get any version of it
at all. That's clearly part of the reason so many people support Sanders.
Few of Sanders supporters are so politically naïve that they think once he was in
office we'd have universal healthcare. They assume they'd get something less than that. They
also assume, however, and history suggests, correctly, that if Biden were elected, they'd get
something less than he is promising, which means they'd get -- nothing at all! It's either
disingenuous or idiotic of Tomasky to suggest that there's essentially no difference between
Sanders' and Biden's healthcare plans, since even a child will tell you that something is
clearly better than nothing.
Tomasky assumes that only if someone other than Sanders gets the nomination would the left
"try to increase its leverage by, for example, running left-wing candidates against a large
number of mainstream Democratic House incumbents." I kid you not, he actually said that. See,
that's what happens when you don't pay sufficient attention to what is going on around you. Or
perhaps Tomasky is simply being disingenuous again and hoping that the average reader of the
New York Review of Books hasn't been following the Sanders campaign and the calls of
both Sanders and his supporters for bringing about sweeping political change by running
left-wing candidates against a large number of mainstream Democratic House incumbents.
"If Sanders wins the nomination," writes Tomasky, "it becomes absolutely incumbent upon
Democratic establishment figures to get behind him, because a second Trump term is unthinkable.
But the reality is," he continues, "that a number of them won't."
Hmm. Why is it that a number of "Democratic establishment figures" would rather have a
second term of Trump than even one term of Sanders? That's not my charge, I feel compelled to
remind readers here. It's Tomasky who came right out and admitted that! Yes, the Democratic
establishment, despite it protestations to the contrary, would rather have a second term of
Trump than even one term of Sanders according to Michael Tomasky, editor-in-chief of
Democracy, a special correspondent for Newsweek and The Daily Beast,
and a contributing editor for The American Prospect, as well as a contributor to the
New York Review of Books .
Why is that? Well, because as Tomasky observes himself earlier in the article, "Democrats
have, since the 1990s, gotten themselves far too indebted to certain donor groups, notably Wall
Street and the tech industry." Yes, this is the same Tomasky who began the article in question
by characterizing these very same Democrats, now in the pocket of Wall Street and the tech
industry, as wanting to reform capitalism, to remake it to create the kind of broad prosperity
the country once knew.
Biden is apparently not the only prominent Democrat who appears to be suffering from some
kind of dementia.
That's not the only dotty thing Tomasky says in the article. "In a parliamentary system," he
says, "Biden would be in the main center-left party." Okay, yeah, maybe, if we suddenly had a
parliamentary system in the U.S. In any other country that presently has a parliamentary system
Biden would be in the center-right party, if not actually the far-right party.
The view that Sanders supporters are mostly young socialists is delusional. The very same
issue of the New York Review of Books includes an excellent article about our current
health-care crisis entitled " Left
Behind " by Helen Epstein. Epstein explains that substantial numbers of the working poor
support Sanders and that "117,000 Pennsylvanians who voted for Sanders in the [2016] primary
cast their general election ballots for Trump." Hmm, it seems unlikely that those 117,000
Pennsylvanians were all young socialists.
Tomasky's world doesn't even cohere with the world as represented by other contributors to
the publication in which his article appears, let alone to the real, concrete world. It exists
only in his fevered imagination and the similarly fevered imaginations of other Democrats who
delude themselves that they are "centrists" rather than right-wing neoliberals. There are bits
and pieces of the truth in Tomasky's vision of the disunity in the Democratic party but he puts
those bits together like a child forcing pieces of a puzzle where they don't belong.
What Tomasky fails to appreciate is just how mad, in the sense of angry, the average
American voter is. Epstein writes that "[i]f you include those who have left the workforce
altogether, the U.S. employment rate is almost as high as it was in 1931." She cites Anne Case
and Angus Deaton as observing in Deaths of Despair and the Future of Capitalism that "[t]he amount American spend
unnecessarily on health care weighs more heavily on our economy than the Versailles Treaty
reparations did on Germans in the 1920s."
Oh yeah, people are angry. Few people are blaming capitalism as such, but nearly everyone
who's suffering economically appears to be blaming the political establishment, and blaming the
Democrats just as much as the Republicans. This is clear from the people interviewed in the
2019 documentary The Corporate Coup
d'Etat. These are people who voted for Sanders in the 2016 primary, but who
then voted for Trump in the general election. They're not socialists. They're just angry.
Really angry, and they're angry at both sides of the political establishment.
Tomasky is worried about the Democratic party, with its two fictional factions, breaking
apart because he concludes "our [political] system militates against a schism." No third party,
he thinks, could be a significant political force.
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Looks like DNC run a pretty sophisticated smear campaign against Sanders ...
Notable quotes:
"... It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies in promoting divisions based on those identities ..."
"... The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two candidates, each vetted for obedience to power. ..."
The Democratic presidential nomination race is a fascinating case study in how power works
– not least, because the Democratic party leaders are visibly contriving to impose one
candidate, Joe Biden, as the party's nominee, even as it becomes clear that he is no longer
mentally equipped to run a local table tennis club let alone the world's most powerful
nation.
Biden's campaign is a reminder that power is indivisible. Donald Trump or Joe Biden for
president – it doesn't matter to the power-establishment. An egomaniacal man-child
(Trump), representing the billionaires, or an elder suffering rapid neurological degeneration
(Biden), representing the billionaires, are equally useful to power. A woman will do too, or a
person of colour. The establishment is no longer worried about who stands on stage
– so long as that person is not a Bernie Sanders in the US, or a Jeremy Corbyn in the
UK.
It really isn't about who the candidates are – hurtful as that may sound to some in
our identity-saturated times. It is about what the candidate might try to do once in office. In
truth, the very fact that nowadays we are allowed to focus on identity to our heart's content
should be warning enough that the establishment is only too keen for us to exhaust our energies
in promoting divisions based on those identities. What concerns it far more is that we might
overcome those divisions and unify against it, withdrawing our consent from an establishment
committed to endless asset-stripping of our societies and the planet.
Neither Biden nor Trump will obstruct the establishment, because they are at its very heart.
The Republican and Democratic leaderships are there to ensure that, before a candidate gets
selected to compete in the parties' name, he or she has proven they are power-friendly. Two
candidates, each vetted for obedience to power.
Although a pretty face or a way with words are desirable, incapacity and incompetence are no
barrier to qualifying, as the two white men groomed by their respective parties demonstrate.
Both have proved they will favour the establishment, both will pursue near-enough the
same policies , both are committed to the status quo, both have demonstrated their
indifference to the future of life on Earth. What separates the candidates is not real
substance, but presentation styles – the creation of the appearance of difference, of
choice.
Policing the debate
The subtle dynamics of how the Democratic nomination race is being rigged are interesting.
Especially revealing are the ways the Democratic leadership protects establishment power by
policing the terms of debate: what can be said, and what can be thought; who gets to speak and
whose voices are misrepresented or demonised. Manipulation of language is key.
As I pointed out in my previous post , the
establishment's power derives from its invisibility. Scrutiny is kryptonite to
power.
The only way we can interrogate power is through language, and the only way we can
communicate our conclusions to others is through words – as I am doing right now. And
therefore our strength – our ability to awaken ourselves from the trance of power –
must be subverted by the establishment, transformed into our Achilles' heel, a weakness.
The treatment of Bernie Sanders and his supporters by the Democratic establishment –
and those who eagerly repeat its talking points – neatly illustrates how this can be done
in manifold ways.
Remember this all started back in 2016, when Sanders committed the unforgivable sin of
challenging the Democratic leadership's right simply to anoint Hillary Clinton as the party's
presidential candidate. In those days, the fault line was obvious and neat: Bernie was a man,
Clinton a woman. She would be the first woman president. The only party members who might wish
to deny her that historic moment, and back Sanders instead, had to be misogynist men. They were
supposedly venting their anti-women grudge against Clinton, who in turn was presented to women
as a symbol of their oppression by men.
And so was born a meme: the "Bernie Bros". It rapidly became shorthand for suggesting
– contrary to all evidence
– that Sanders' candidacy appealed chiefly to angry, entitled white men. In fact, as
Sanders' 2020 run has amply demonstrated, support for him has been more diverse than for the
many other Democratic candidates who sought the nomination.
So important what @ewarren is saying to @maddow about the
dangerous, threatening, ugly faction among the Bernie supporters. Sanders either cannot or
will not control them. pic.twitter.com/LYDXlLJ7bi
How contrived the 2016 identity-fuelled contest was should have been clear, had anyone been
allowed to point that fact out. This wasn't really about the Democratic leadership respecting
Clinton's identity as a woman. It was about them paying lip service to her identity as a
woman, while actually promoting her because she was a reliable warmonger
and
Wall Street functionary . She was useful to power.
If the debate had really been driven by identity politics, Sanders had a winning card too:
he is Jewish. That meant he could be the United States' first Jewish president. In a fair
identity fight, it would have been a draw between the two. The decision about who should
represent the Democratic party would then have had to be decided based on policies, not
identity. But party leaders did not want Clinton's actual policies, or her political history,
being put under the microscope for very obvious reasons.
Weaponisation of identity
The weaponisation of identity politics is even more transparent in 2020. Sanders is still
Jewish, but his main opponent, Joe Biden, really is simply a privileged white man. Were the
Clinton format to be followed again by Democratic officials, Sanders would enjoy an identity
politics trump card. And yet Sanders is still being presented as just another white male
candidate , no different from Biden.
(We could take this argument even further and note that the other candidate who no one,
least of all the Democratic leadership, ever mentions as still in the race is Tulsi
Gabbard, a woman of colour. The Democratic party has worked hard to make her as
invisible as possible in the primaries because, of all the candidates, she is the most
vocal and articulate opponent of foreign wars. That has deprived her of the chance to raise
funds and win delegates.)
. @DanaPerino I'm not quite sure why
you're telling FOX viewers that Elizabeth Warren is the last female candidate in the Dem
primary. Is it because you believe a fake indigenous woman of color is "real" and the real
indigenous woman of color in this race is fake? pic.twitter.com/VKCxy2JzFe
Sanders' Jewish identity isn't celebrated because he isn't useful to the
power-establishment. What's far more important to them – and should be to us too –
are his policies, which might limit their power to wage war, exploit workers and trash the
planet.
But it is not just that Democratic Party leaders are ignoring Sanders' Jewish identity. They
are also again actively using identity politics against him, and in many different
ways.
The 'black' establishment?
Bernie Sanders' supporters have been complaining for some time – based on mounting
evidence – that the Democratic leadership is far from neutral between Sanders and Biden.
Because it has a vested interest in the outcome, and because it is the part of the
power-establishment, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is exercising its influence in
favour of Biden. And because power prefers darkness, the DNC is doing its best to exercise that
power behind the scenes, out of sight – at least, unseen by those who still rely on the
"mainstream" corporate media, which is also part of the power-establishment. As should be clear
to anyone watching, the nomination proceedings are being controlled to give Biden every
advantage and to obstruct Sanders.
But the Democratic leadership is not only dismissing out of hand these very justified
complaints from Bernie Sanders' supporters but also turning these complaints against them, as
further evidence of their – and his – illegitimacy. A new way of doing this emerged
in the immediate wake of Biden winning South Carolina on the back of strong support from older
black voters – Biden's first state win and a launchpad for his Super Tuesday bid a few
days later.
It was given perfect expression from Symone Sanders, who despite her surname is actually a
senior adviser to Biden's campaign. She is also black. This is what she wrote: "People who keep
referring to Black voters as 'the establishment' are tone deaf and have obviously learned
nothing."
People who keep referring to Black voters as "the establishment" are tone deaf and have
obviously learned nothing.
-- Symone D. Sanders (@SymoneDSanders) March 3,
2020
Her reference to generic "people" was understood precisely by both sides of the debate as
code for those "Bernie Bros". Now, it seems, Bernie Sanders' supporters are not simply
misogynists, they are potential recruits to the Ku Klux Klan.
The tweet went viral, even though in the fiercely contested back-and-forth below her tweet
no one could produce a single example of anyone actually saying anything like the sentiment
ascribed by Symone Sanders to "Bernie Bros". But then, tackling bigotry was not her real goal.
This wasn't meant to be a reflection on a real-world talking-point by Bernie supporters. It was
high-level gaslighting by a senior Democratic party official of the party's own voters.
Survival of the fittest smear
What Symone Sanders was really trying to do was conceal power – the fact that the DNC
is seeking to impose its chosen candidate on party members. As occurred during the confected
women-men, Clinton vs "Bernie Bros" confrontation, Symone Sanders was field-testing a similar
narrative management tool as part of the establishment's efforts to hone it for improved
effect. The establishment has learnt – through a kind of survival of the fittest smear
– that divide-and-rule identity politics is the perfect way to shield its influence as it
favours a status-quo candidate (Biden or Clinton) over a candidate seen as a threat to its
power (Sanders).
In her tweet, Symone Sanders showed exactly how the power elite seeks to obscure its toxic
role in our societies. She neatly conflated "the establishment" – of which she is a very
small, but well-paid component – with ordinary "black voters". Her message is this:
should you try to criticise the establishment (which has inordinate power to damage lives and
destroy the planet) we will demonise you, making it seem that you are really attacking black
people (who in the vast majority of cases – though Symone Sanders is a notable exception
– wield no power at all).
Symone Sanders has recruited her own blackness and South Carolina's "black voters" as a ring
of steel to protect the establishment. Cynically, she has turned poor black people, as well as
the tens of thousands of people (presumably black and white) who liked her tweet, into human
shields for the establishment.
It sounds a lot uglier put like that. But it has rapidly become a Biden talking-point, as we
can see here:
NEW: @JoeBiden responds to @berniesanders
saying the "establishment" is trying to defeat him.
"The establishment are all those hardworking, middle class people, those African Americans
they are the establishment!" @CBSNews pic.twitter.com/43Q2Nci5sS
The DNC's wider strategy is to confer on Biden exclusive rights to speak for black voters
(despite his
inglorious record on
civil rights issues) and, further, to strip Sanders and his senior black advisers of any
right to do so. When Sanders protests about this, or about racist behaviour from the Biden
camp, Biden's supporters come out in force and often abusively, though of course no one is
upbraiding them for their ugly, violent language. Here is the famous former tennis player
Martina Navratilova showing that maybe we should be talking about "Biden Bros":
Sanders is starting to really piss me off. Just shut this kind of crap down and debate the
issues. This is not it.
This kind of special pleading by the establishment for the establishment –
using those sections of it, such as Symone Sanders, that can tap into the identity politics
zeitgeist – is far more common than you might imagine. The approach is being
constantly refined, often using social media as the ultimate focus group. Symone Sanders'
successful conflation of the establishment with "black voters" follows earlier, clumsier
efforts by the establishment to protect its interests against Sanders that proved far less
effective.
Remember how last autumn the billionaire-owned corporate media tried to tell us that it was
unkind to
criticise billionaires – that they had feelings too and that speaking harshly about
them was "dehumanising". Again it was aimed at Sanders, who had just commented that in a
properly ordered world billionaires simply wouldn't exist. It was an obvious point: allowing a
handful of people to control almost all the planet's wealth was not only depriving the rest of
us of that wealth (and harming the planet) but it gave those few billionaires way too much
power. They could buy all the media, our channels of communication, and most of the politicians
to ringfence their financial interests, gradually eroding even the most minimal democratic
protections.
That campaign died a quick death because few of us are actually brainwashed enough to accept
the idea that a handful of billionaires share an identity that needs protecting – from
us! Most of us are still connected enough to the real world to understand that billionaires are
more than capable of looking out for their own interests, without our helping them by imposing
on ourselves a vow of silence.
But one cannot fault the power-establishment for being constantly inventive in the search
for new ways to stifle our criticisms of the way it unilaterally exercises its power. The
Democratic nomination race is testing such ingenuity to the limits. Here's a new rule against
"hateful conduct" on Twitter, where Biden's neurological deficit is being subjected to much
critical scrutiny through the sharing of dozens of
videos of embarrassing Biden "senior moments".
Twitter expanding its hateful conduct rules "to include language that dehumanizes on the
basis of age, disability or disease." https://t.co/KmWGaNAG9Z
Yes, disability and age are identities too. And so, on the pretext of protecting and
respecting those identities, social media can now be scrubbed of anything and anyone trying to
highlight the mental deficiencies of an old man who might soon be given the nuclear codes and
would be responsible for waging wars in the name of Americans. Twitter is full of comments
denouncing as "ableist" anyone who tries to highlight how the Democratic leadership is foisting
a cognitively challenged Biden on to the party.
Maybe the Dem insiders are all wrong, but it's true that they are saying it. Some are
saying it out loud, including Castro at the debate and Booker here: https://t.co/0lbi7RFRqG
None of this is to overlook the fact that another variation of identity politics has been
weaponised against Sanders: that of failing to be an "American" patriot. Again illustrating how
closely the Democratic and Republican leaderships' interests align, the question of who is a
patriot – and who is really working for the "Russians" – has been at the heart of
both parties' campaigns, though for different reasons.
Trump has been subjected to endless, evidence-free claims that he is a secret "Russian
agent" in a concerted effort to control his original isolationist foreign policy impulses that
might have stripped the establishment – and its military-industrial wing – of the
right to wage wars of aggression, and revive the Cold War, wherever it believes a profit can be
made under cover of "humanitarian intervention". Trump partly inoculated himself against these
criticisms, at least among supporters, with his "Make America Great Again" slogan, and partly
by learning – painfully for such an egotist – that his presidential role was to
rubber-stamp decisions made elsewhere about waging wars and projecting US power.
I'm just amazed by this tweet, which has been tweeted plenty. Did @_nalexander and all the people
liking this not know that Mueller laid out in the indictments of a number of Russians and in
his report their help on social media to Sanders and Trump. Help Sanders has acknowledged
https://t.co/vuc0lmvvKP
Bernie Sanders has faced similar smear
efforts by the establishment, including by the DNC's last failed presidential candidate
Hillary Clinton – in his case, painting him as a "Russian asset". ("Asset" is a way to
suggest collusion with the Kremlin based on even more flimsy evidence than is needed to accuse
someone of being an agent.) In fact, in a world where identity politics wasn't simply a tool to
be weaponised by the establishment, there would be real trepidation about engaging in this kind
of invective against a Jewish socialist.
One of the far-right's favourite antisemitic tropes – promoted ever since the
publication of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion more than 100 years ago – is that
Jewish "Bolsheviks" are involved in an
international conspiracy to subvert the countries they live in. We have reached the point
now that the corporate media are happy to recycle evidence-free claims,
cited by the Washington Post, from anonymous "US officials" and US intelligence agencies
reinventing a US version of the Protocols against Sanders. And these smears have elicited not a
word of criticism from the Democratic leadership nor from the usual antisemitism watchdogs that
are so ready to let rip over the slightest signs of what they claim to be antisemitism on the
left.
But the urgency of dealing with Sanders may be the reason normal conventions have been
discarded. Sanders isn't a loud-mouth egotist like Trump. A vote for Trump is a vote for the
establishment, if for one of its number who pretends to be against the establishment. Trump has
been largely tamed in time for a second term. By contrast, Sanders, like Corbyn in the UK, is
more dangerous because he may resist the efforts to domesticate him, and because if he is
allowed any significant measure of political success – such as becoming a candidate for
president – it may inspire others to follow in his footsteps. The system might start to
throw up more anomalies, more AOCs and more Ilhan Omars.
So Sanders is now being cast, like Trump, as a puppet of the Kremlin, not a true American.
And because he made the serious mistake of indulging the "Russiagate" smears when they were
used against Trump, Sanders now has little defence against their redeployment against him. And
given that, by the impoverished standards of US political culture, he is considered an extreme
leftist, it has been easy to conflate his democratic socialism with Communism, and then
conflate his supposed Communism with acting on behalf of the Kremlin (which, of course, ignores
the fact that Russia long ago abandoned Communism).
Sen. Bernie Sanders: "Let me tell this to Putin -- the American people, whether
Republicans, Democrats, independents are sick and tired of seeing Russia and other countries
interfering in our elections." pic.twitter.com/ejcP7YVFlt
There is a final use of weaponised identity politics that the Democratic establishment would
dearly love to use against Sanders, if they need to and can get away with it. It is the most
toxic brand – and therefore the most effective – of the identity-based smears, and
it has been extensively field-tested in the
UK against Jeremy Corbyn to great success. The DNC would like to denounce Sanders as an
antisemite.
In fact, only one thing has held them back till now: the fact that Sanders is Jewish. That
may not prove an insuperable obstacle, but it does make it much harder to make the accusation
look credible. The other identity-based smears had been a second-best, a make-do until a way
could be found to unleash the antisemitism smear.
The establishment has been
testing the waters with implied accusations of antisemitism against Sanders for a while,
but their chances were given a fillip recently when Sanders refused to participate in the
annual jamboree of AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobby group
whose primary mission is to ringfence Israel from criticism in the US. Both the Republican and
Democratic establishments turn out in force to the AIPAC conference, and in the past the event
has attracted keynote speeches from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
But Sanders has refused to attend for decades and maintained that stance this month, even
though he is a candidate for the Democratic nomination. In the last primaries debate, Sanders
justified his decision by rightly
calling Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "racist" and by describing AIPAC as
providing a platform "for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights".
Trump's Vice-President, Mike Pence,
responded that Sanders supported "Israel's enemies" and, if elected, would be the "most
anti-Israel president in the history of this nation" – all coded suggestions that Sanders
is antisemitic.
But that's Mike Pence. More useful criticism came from billionaire Mike Bloomberg, who is
himself Jewish and was until last week posing as a Democrat to try to win the party's
nomination. Bloomberg accused Sanders of using dehumanising language against a bunch of
inclusive identities that, he improbably suggested, AIPAC represents. He
claimed :
"This is a gathering of 20,000 Israel supporters of every religious denomination,
ethnicity, faith, color, sexual identity and political party. Calling it a racist platform is
an attempt to discredit those voices, intimidate people from coming here, and weaken the
US-Israel relationship."
Where might this head? At the AIPAC conference last week we were given a foretaste. Ephraim
Mirvis, the chief rabbi of the UK and a friend to
Conservative government leader Boris Johnson, was warmly greeted by delegates, including
leading members of the Democratic establishment. He boasted that he and other Jewish leaders in
the UK had managed to damage Jeremy Corbyn's electoral chances by suggesting that he was an
antisemite over his support, like Sanders, for Palestinian rights.
His own treatment of Corbyn, he argued, offered a model for US Jewish organisations to
replicate against any leadership contender who might pose similar trouble for Israel, leaving
it for his audience to pick up the not-so-subtle hint about who needed to be subjected to
character assassination.
WATCH: "Today I issue a call to the Jews of America, please take a leaf out of our book
and please speak with one voice."
The Chief Rabbi speaking to the 18,000 delegates gathered at the @AIPAC General Session at their Policy
Conference in Washington DC pic.twitter.com/BOkan9RA2O
For anyone who isn't wilfully blind, the last few months have exposed the establishment
playbook: it will use identity politics to divide those who might otherwise find a united voice
and a common cause.
There is nothing wrong with celebrating one's identity, especially if it is under threat,
maligned or marginalised. But having an attachment to an identity is no excuse for allowing it
to be coopted by billionaires, by the powerful, by nuclear-armed states oppressing other
people, by political parties or by the corporate media, so that they can weaponise it to
prevent the weak, the poor, the marginalised from being represented.
It is time for us to wake up to the tricks, the deceptions, the manipulations of the strong
that exploit our weaknesses – and make us yet weaker still. It's time to stop being a
patsy for the establishment. Join the debate on
Facebook More articles by: Jonathan Cook
"... One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America. ..."
"... Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again. ..."
"... With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money grubbing ways. ..."
"... Tulsi is inspirational. I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption. ..."
"... The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies, injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive end-point. ..."
"... These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this morass. ..."
"... As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC. ..."
"... He never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. ..."
"... Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden? ..."
"... The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the DNC. ..."
"... "Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank. Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race. ..."
"... Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason. ..."
"... Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play. ..."
"... Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden. ..."
"... And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in it to win it. ..."
"... Blackmail ? The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election – Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397 ..."
"... Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting worse. ..."
"... Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday. http://tdmsresearch.com/ ..."
The handful of American citizens who have by some miracle escaped the wave of death caused
by the coronavirus will be braving the toilet-paper maddened crowds to vote in the latest round
of Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden.
Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
None of the mainstream media have questioned the validity of results or the fairness of the
electoral process, although given the DNC's history you'd be forgiven for doing so.
After Biden's win, Trump immediately went on the offensive (so to speak), questioning
Biden's
mental acuity . This is likely just a taste of things to come.
Given this, you have to wonder what the point of the exercise is. Biden will likely be
mauled by Trump, so are the Democrats even trying to win? Is the plan for Biden to have "health
problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC to pick its own candidate? Or is the plan to
have him run, win and then get Ned Starked by his vice-president whoever he or (more likely)
she may be?
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
It seems like Bernie is a serial offender here. Setting up hope only to fold faster than
Superman on laundry day when the pressure is on. You wonder if he's being used as a tool to
engage the youth vote, or just a puppet designed to funnel all real leftist thinkers into a
political cul-de-sac.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise
Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe Biden? why?! Are they
planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each candidate pick as a
running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
NOBTS ,
If Bernie is real; ie. not sheep-dogging for Hillary again, he can prove it by dropping out
immediately and throwing his delegates to Tulsi so she can debate Joe Biden on Sunday; then
watch the fur fly. .last chance for the left.
Seriously, the only positive play left for Bernie, (if positive change is his intent )would
be to immediately drop out and throw a "Hail Tulsi Pass" downfield ahead of the Sunday
debate.
michaelk ,
One would imagine that Tulsi Gabbard would tick all the liberal/left boxes and virtues the
Guardian pretends to adore and aspire to. She seems almost too perfect in my eyes another
story perhaps? Anyway, one wonders what all those politically correct and so obvioulsy woke
feminist ladies at the Guardian have against Tulsi? The Guardian seems to have decided that
its future lies overseas, in America, which is very odd for a newspaper/platform based in the
UK? Consequently, they are increasingly obsessed with moving closer and closer to the
Democrat party in the US.
This is like the BBC that keeps talking to Americans about absolutely everything of
importance that happens in the world and seeking their insights and opinions to a truly
remarkably degree, considering how little they know and understand about the rest of the
world and how poor they are at foreign languages and historical knowledge. Christ they know
next to nothing about their own history, let alone the rest of the world! The idea that all
these Americans are authorities on the world is ridiculous.
Harry Stotle ,
The ghosting of Gabbard illustrates how the MSM act in concert, and how they look after their
own, i.e. backing those understand their role as puppets for corporate backers.
It also illustrates how the likes of the Guardian turn identity politics off and on like a
tap, but more importantly how even shibboleths like identity politics are still secondary to
an economic model that has placed us on the road to armegeddon.
Maxine ,
Well, Tulsi is FAR from "too perfect" .She voluntarily took part in the Bush/Cheny invasion
of Iraq .How could anybody with a working mind have believed the lies of these nortorious
criminals? .And what sort of judgement did this show? .Just as bad, she is a big fan of
India's monstrous Right-Wing leader, Modi .Nevertheless, the DNC's throwing her out of the
debate is another hideous sign of its corruption .Like her or not, she should have her
opinions heard by the public.
Maxine ,
Don't get me wrong, I find the Gaurdian as despicable as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, the NYT and the
rest of the American MSM .OffG is a god-send.
Admin2 ,
Thanks Maxine!
michaelk ,
One almost feels sorry for Bernie Sanders, who, even at this late stage, still seems to
believe that he can drag Joe Biden to the 'left' and secure something/anything? for all those
millions of ordinary Americans who supported Bernie's dream of a more just and equal America.
Poor Bernie and poor ordinary Americans. It ain't gonna work. Bernie knows that the
Demorcratic party has chosen Biden, not him and his political dream is over, once again.
Now it's all about stopping the 'monster' Trump first and foremost. The coming election
won't actually be about anything of real substance, nothing like Bernie's political ideas
about healthcare and education; but it'll be a crass referendum about Trump's personality.
Biden, of course, doesn't really have a personality anymore, that's going fast, along with
his mental capacity.
Trump will smash him to pieces and be re-elected again. Four more years,
at least.
Maxine ,
I would have voted for Bernie in 2016 if the DNC hadn't rigged the primary on behalf of
Hillary .But I was overwhelmingly disappointed that he in the end supported her .Sadly, I am
appalled that once again he announced he would support Biden if the latter won the primary
this time. How could he?. Hillary and Biden are diametrically opposed to every one of
Sander's professed principles!
Andy ,
With Joe having these " miraculous " wins in the primaries yet bringing nothing new to the
table I can only conclude we are set for another 4 yrs of Trumpelstiltskin and his money
grubbing ways.
As for Michelle Obama coming into the fight , I can only laugh and carry on
with my life. I fail to see what she has to offer, other than being Barry's wife. Not really
awe – inspiring stuff. Young Hilary must be turning in her coffin at the thought of
being pipped to the post, as the first female President by another ex presidents wife.
We
truly are living in bizarro times. The men behind the curtain must be laughing their
collective arses off at the results of this circus they have created.
Tulsi is inspirational.
I'm not talking 'politics' but regarding her willingness to speak truth to corruption.
harry stotle ,
America dispensed with the idea of democracy some time ago.
The self-evident externalities of 40 years of unfettered neoliberalism (war, lies,
injustice, extreme wealth inequality, etc) now seem to be approaching some sort of explosive
end-point.
There may be a full blown international conflict, rather than asymmetrical power used to
intimidate weaker states (led by the USA, and backed to the hilt by Britain, Israel, and
KSA).
These problems are too entrenched for real politicians to sort out, so what we have
instead is a form theatre, albeit a third-rate form of theatre with abysmal actors taking on
roles that are far too difficult for them: Trump vs Biden would be the apotheosis this
morass.
Pity more citizens in America fail to understand what has been done to them, or what this
corrupt regime has inflicted on rest of the world.
Britain is no better – to expose what is happening we need a functioning MSM but what
we have instead is the Guardian and BBC: platforms that are now infamous for churning out low
calibre, or fake news.
Is the plan for Biden to have "health problems" before the convention, forcing the DNC
to pick its own candidate?
That's my theory. I think they're going to suddenly 'discover' that Joltin' Joe has
'health problems' and then roll out their real candidate on the second ballot at the
convention this summer–probably Michelle Obama.
Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
I think our only hope now is that the Corona Virus kills all other politicians in the US,
leaving only Tulsi alive. Of course, the DNC would probably still find some way to deny her
the nomination somehow
michaelk ,
The DNC's election tactics were superb. Corrupt, rotten, foul and manipulative as well, but
they worked. The swathe of candidates at the start gave the impression of a democratic and
fair race, whilst deflecting people away from the stark choice of supporting Biden or Sanders
from the beginning.
Whilst Trump succeeded by first capturing the Republican party and then going on to win
the presidential election; Sanders chose not to follow that strategy, apparently believing,
though it's an extraordinary thing to believe, that the leadership of the party was going to
allow him to win the nomination 'fairly.'
Biden against Trump is going to be the worst, most grotesque, election contest, ever seen
in the United States. Two totally unworthy candidates battling it out over the rotting corpse
of a dying democracy. Probably the best result would be if most people just stayed at home on
election day and boycotted the entire ghastly event.
wardropper ,
Yes. People should just stay home. But of course there is a regular percentage of observers
who are incensed by the idea that people will realize how little effect their vote truly
has.
"It's treason not to vote", they rage, quite oblivious to the really treasonous system
which manipulates votes according to something quite different from the interests of
democracy.
wardropper ,
It would be interesting to see, (although it's not going to happen) how the media, faced with
an absolute zero voting turnout, would still manage to yap on about a "neck and neck race",
with the most corrupt party emerging the clear winner after all
Gary Weglarz ,
The Democratic Party candidate selection process continues to roll along providing all the
tension and suspense of an impending colonoscopy – sans anesthetic. It has been clear
since 25 (yes 25) Democratic Party challengers have already "dropped out" of the race –
that divide and conquer would be the order of the day. Spread the electorate out among a
ridiculous number of mainstream centrist candidates and then throw all that support to one
candidate – Joe Biden. Why would the party establishment choose Biden? Perhaps the
following recent quote from Joe might shed some light. In trying to reference the Declaration
of Independence Biden had the following to say to a crowd at a campaign rally:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men and women created by -- you know, you
know . . . the thing."
Since we all know "the thing" is said to "work in mysterious ways" – one can deduce
that the Democratic Party elites are perhaps depending upon "the thing" to work some sort of
a miracle for them. At any rate it is all rather "mysterious" indeed.
Since Tulsi Gabbard has had the temerity to not join the 25 brain-dead placeholders and to
"drop out" herself, and since she has further shown the very bad form of continuing to speak
to anyone who will listen about America's illegal amoral regime-change wars – she has
sadly had to be simply – "disappeared." Yes, I know, this term is usually associated
with the death-squad democracies my government supports endlessly and shamelessly in Latin
America, but if nothing else our American MSM have shown that you don't need death squads
when they are on the job. They are quite capable of completely and entirely "disappearing"
anyone sharing a message that has not been – "oligarchy approved." Trying to find
reference to Tulsi in MSM is like trying to get through a day without being brutally reminded
of Joe Biden's blinding dementia problem – pretty much impossible.
As the author suggests the Democratic Party establishment surely must have some plan other
than simply sabotaging Sanders and then throwing a demented Biden to the Orange One to act as
a pinata during the presidential debates. We American's do love "reality TV," but this I fear
would be about as crass and horrific a spectacle as watching someone drown puppies on live
television. Surely we must assume that the DNC and party oligarchy plan to use Biden as yet
another "place-holder" to be replaced between now and fall presidential debates. The name
"Hillary 'the rot' Clinton comes to mind – and suddenly one is reminded that there are
worse things in life than a colonoscopy.
Of course the actual credibility of all of this spectacle to date depends upon one
actually believing that both the polling numbers, and the voting processes, are honest and
ethical and accurate, which seems to me to be about as likely as "you know, you know . . .
the thing," performing some sort of a "miracle" on behalf of the Democratic Party so that it
can valiantly vanquish the Orange One – using of all things – a dementia
sufferer.
From my limited vantage point here in southern California it would appear that America is
very much like a runaway train speeding toward a very very thick brick wall while gaining
speed minute by minute. This train of course has no "driver" – save the inexorable laws
of history as they pertain to crumbling "empires."
With that in mind I think I'll go shopping again so I can pretend none of this is
happening – while joining with my neighbors in "hoarding" as much toilet paper as I
possibly can! Actually, truth be told, the local toilet paper supply is now long gone and
people are now hoarding paper towels – (I kid you not) – which of course portends
a lot of very very sore bottoms by the time this is all over.
Seamus Padraig ,
You can have a dogshit sandwich or a catshit sandwich, just so long as its kosher.
So true! +1000
Charlotte Russe ,
Unfortunately, for all of Bernie's enthusiastic supporter 2020 was a redux of 2016. Amnesia,
initially sets in caused by the initial excitement. Bernie's campaign overwhelms those
yearning for change. Sanders is cognizant of how young voters and the marginalized are
economically suffering. He knows exactly what to say to arouse an audience of thousands.
Devoted crowds eagerly rally around Bernie anticipating the upcoming primaries, believing
he'll win everyone of them. After all, how could anyone be against a message promoting social
justice.
And lo and behold, right out of the box the security state shenanigans begin. A "Shadow
app" surfaces in Iowa, followed by a narrow win in New Hampshire. And although Bernie won the
popular vote in the first two primaries he still comes out the loser to CIA Pete. However,
not to be deterred Bernie won the Nevada caucus in a landslide. That was the moment when
security state needed to make its move. It was now or never. These ghouls could not let
Bernie pick up any more momentum. If they did, it would be too late to stop
him–Milwaukee could turn into a bloodbath. It was time for the intelligence agencies to
take a stand.
Clyburn a sellout bourgeois conservative black was called upon to do his duty. You don't
get to be a "misleader" of the poor and the dejected if you won't convince them to smile
while jumping off a cliff.
Slick Clyburn, gathered all the other crooked black politicians and they united in force
behind brain dead Biden. When misleader Clyburn speaks his downtrodden constituency listens.
South Carolina was a wipeout–Biden overwhelmingly won. And that's all the security
state needed. Using the state-run mainstream media news propaganda machine in 72 hours
Biden's campaign was raised like Lazarus from the dead.
Drooling Joe, received a slew of slick endorsements from all the longtime party hacks. A
narrative was easily generated– Sanders was a loser and only Biden could beat Trump. At
the end of day, don't you dumbasses want to beat Trump. So let's unite behind alzheimer
Joe–he's our best chance.
As it turned out, the security state's narrative was easy to pull off because Sander is
weak, lacks courage, and was never in it to win it. He never fought back against the DNC.
He
never called out the cheating in Iowa. There were thousands of volunteers that would be
willing to protest on his behalf. Timid Bernie just let it go. There were other things
showing Bernie's lack of interest in winning. He stupidly embraced the Russiagate concocted
narrative and then was victimized by it himself. He refused to tear into Biden describing in
detail how every piece of reactionary legislation Joe passed was based on payoffs he'd
received for either his son or his brother. In South Carolina, Bernie never used the millions
donated to play video clips proving Biden is a warmongering racist.
Instead Bernie, kept saying "Biden is my good friend" or "Biden can beat Trump." WTF, if
Biden can beat Trump then why are you running? Are you campaigning for Biden?
The final nail was Tulsi's tweet asking for Biden and Bernie's support for her to right to
participate in the next debate. Yang and Marianne Williamson tweeted yes of course, but
Bernie was silent. On subsequent mainstream media news appearances Bernie totally ignored
Tulsi's candidacy. That was it – Bernie is a lackey – completely intimidated by the
DNC.
Naturally the DNC didn't want Tulsi near the debate stage–she's the bravest of the
lot. Tulsi would have proved Biden was a crook and a war criminal. Tulsi presence would be a
boom for bernie, but Bernie didn't want that since he was in cahoots with the DNC.
And in the end, that's what it was always all about NOTHING. Bernie is the Tammy and Jim
Baker of politics a prophet of false hope. He gathers up all the guiless and guillibe and
then tosses them into the lion's den.
In Biden's case it's easy to know why the slithering DC establishment gang embraced him
with open arms -- they all wanted to come back home
Here are some of the people Biden is considering for senior positions, per Axios:
"Former New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is a top contender to head up the World Bank.
Bloomberg endorsed Biden immediately after dropping out of the 2020 race.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts as Treasury secretary. Warren dropped out of the
race last week after disappointing losses on Super Tuesday but hasn't yet made an
endorsement. Axios reported that Warren's name had been floated as part of an effort to unite
the fractured Democratic Party around Biden. Some of Biden's advisers have also suggested
Warren as a vice-presidential candidate for that reason.
Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, as the US ambassador to the
United Nations or the US trade representative. Buttigieg also endorsed Biden shortly after
dropping out.
Some Biden advisers see Sen. Kamala Harris of California as a contender for attorney
general if she's not on the ticket.
JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon and Bank of America Vice Chairman Anne Finucane have both
been floated for positions at the Treasury Department.
The Biden campaign is also considering a slew of veterans from the Obama administration
for key positions. Among those being considered:
Former Secretary of State John Kerry may reprise his role or take on a Cabinet position
focused on combating climate change.
The former national security adviser Susan Rice may be nominated for a State Department
role.
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates is a contender for attorney general."
Every loathsome contemptible neoliberal military interventionist is waiting in the wings
to continue where Obama left off ..
Super Tuesday was so obviously rigged. The vote in California deviated from exit polling by
over 15% and don't get me started on that Shadow app used for the Iowa caucus. The only
difference wasn't as blatantly obvious as the last Primary.
Seems Bernie has reprised his role as sheep dog. Probably the reason the Orwellian DNC
unpersoned Tulsi is that she probably refused to play.
Charlotte Ruse ,
Hundreds of thousands of ballots in California and Texas were discarded. Warren purposely
stayed in the race to screw Bernie in Minnesota and Massachusetts, while Klobuchar and
Buttigeg dropped out to prop-up Biden.
In avid Bernie locations polling centers were closed. And when all else failed voting
machines are hacked. No one should underate the power of state-run mainstream media
propaganda they hammered Sanders and launded the creep Biden.
And as I mentioned, Bernie is his own worst enemy, or as I also speculated he was never in
it to win it.
The elections are more democratic in Afghanistan. When I previously commented on several
posts the Democratic Party Primaries need to be monitored by a UN Raconteur many found it
amusing.
Maxine ,
Why did Bernie become a candidate if he were not in it to win? .I can't figure that one out.
Eric McCoo ,
Blackmail ?
The Clinton campaign exercising leverage over Sanders during the election –
Podesta/wikileaks emails. 'This isn't in keeping w the agreement. Since we clearly have some leverage, would be good
to flag this for him'. https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/47397
RealPeter ,
There is a lot in what Charlotte says. Unfortunately. Trump may end up botching the corona
crisis and lose, but whoever wins it's going to be four more years of everything getting
worse.
Andy ,
Some research on 'possible' fraudulent hidden computer counting from first super Tuesday.
http://tdmsresearch.com/
Ken ,
The fix is in for the status quo, and it's quite likely another 4 years of the orange
asshole.
Everybody knows (listen to Leonard Cohen) Tulsi Gabbard does not exist, just like everybody
knows Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction, Assad, that Putin Nazi, spread some kind of Bad
Gas in Douma, repeatededly over several years since 2014, which the Intrepid White Helmets
made better–just watch their Hollywood, Oscar winning movie. Of course Joe Biden is
senile, else why would he challenge our carrot-topped Fearless leader, and everybody knows
that Putin-Nazi Boris and Natasha tried to rig the 2016 election but were thwarted by
Moose-Squirel, and other CIA assets.
"... The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe Biden. Since his "miraculous" wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian . ..."
"... Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis. You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance. ..."
The toilet-paper maddened crowds will be braving coronavirus to vote in the latest round of
Democratic primaries today.
There's several more rounds of voting before the convention in July, but this is the last
before the next debate on March 15th.
The process is kinda moot at this point.
The weight of the establishment has thrown itself – for some reason – behind Joe
Biden. Since his "miraculous"
wins on Super Tuesday we've been treated to dozens of stories praising his "decency", happy
that "angry politics" lost, and calling for the party to "unite
behind" Biden . And that's just The Guardian .
Jonathan Freedland, in his special brand of smug establishment boot-licking, suggested that
Biden being a long-term establishment democrat is his strength in these times of crisis.
You have to wonder if that crisis wasn't awful convenient for Joe, in that instance.
... ... ...
Whatever the plan turns out to be, progressives and leftists all over America will likely be
disappointed in Bernie. If last time is anything to go by, no matter how obviously he (and more
importantly his voters) get screwed over, Sanders will just let it happen.
The other Great White Hope of American leftists – or should that be "Great Native
American hope"? – Elizabeth Warren, dropped out last week but is yet to endorse her
fellow "progressive", Bernie Sanders. This could mean she's spiteful, or it could mean she's
angling to be Biden's VP nominee. Either way, no real surprise and no real loss. Warren always
talked a better game than she played and she didn't talk all that well.
Oh, and the DNC changed their debate eligibility rules to exclude
Tulsi Gabbard . Something both the other candidates and the vast majority of the mainstream
media have been quiet about.
Questions arise Are the democrats really rallying behind Joe
Biden? why?! Are they planning to throw the race? Is Joe Biden going senile? Who will each
candidate pick as a running mate? Will the DNC ever acknowledge Tulsi Gabbard exists?
Numerous so-called "front groups" operate in the United States. A front group is very simply
an organization that pretends to have a certain program while at the same time using that
identity as cover to promote a hidden agenda that is something quite different, often opposed
to what is being said publicly. The Global Climate Coalition is, for example, an organization
funded by fossil fuel providers that works to deny climate change and other related issues. The
Groundwater Protection Council does not protect water resources at all and instead receives its
money from the fracking industry, which resists any regulation of water pollution it causes.
The Partnership for a New American Economy has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. economy
and instead seeks to replace American workers with H1B immigrant laborers. Even the benign
sounding National Sleep Foundation, is in reality a Big Pharma creation intended to convince
Americans that they need to regularly use sleep inducing drugs.
Front groups in a political context can be particularly dangerous as they deceive the voter
into supporting candidates or promoting policies that have a hidden agenda. The
Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is, for example, uninterested in
preserving democracies unless that democracy is Israel, which many observers would prefer to
describe as an apartheid state. It is funded by Zionists billionaires and its leadership meets
regularly with Israeli officials. The American Enterprise Institute is likewise a neocon
mouthpiece for economic imperialism and regime change disguising itself as a free market
advocate and the Brookings Institution is its liberal interventionist counterpart.
Front groups are sometimes largely fictional, on occasion creations of an intelligence
agency to give the impression that there exists in a country a formidable opposition to
policies pursued by the governing regime. Recent developments in Venezuela and Bolivia rather
suggest the CIA creation of front groups in both countries while the Ukrainian regime change
that took place in 2014 also benefited greatly from a U.S. created and supported opposition to
the legitimate Viktor Yanukovych government.
"... The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a "political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change. ..."
"... It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus. ..."
"... One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president, clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump. ..."
"... African American Democratic Party leaders, including Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party. ..."
"... The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the Washington Post ..."
"... What the Washington Post ..."
"... the entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris. ..."
"... Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. ..."
"... More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the election, and now re-election of Trump. ..."
The campaign of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders is making a last-ditch stand in the
Michigan primary Tuesday, amid mounting indications that the Democratic Party as a whole has
moved decisively into the camp of his main rival, former Vice President Joe Biden. Sanders
cancelled rallies in Mississippi, Missouri and Illinois -- all states where he trails Biden
in the polls -- in order to concentrate all his efforts in Michigan, where he won an upset
victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
On Sunday, Senator Kamala Harris endorsed Biden, the latest of nine former presidential
contenders to announce their support for their one-time rival, joining Pete Buttigieg, Amy
Klobuchar, Michael Bloomberg, Beto O'Rourke, John Delaney, Seth Moulton, Tim Ryan, and Deval
Patrick. Harris is to join Biden for a campaign rally in Detroit Monday.
The consolidation of the Democratic Party behind Biden is a damning exposure, not
merely of the politically reactionary character of this organization, but of the contemptible
falsification on which the Sanders campaign has been based: that it is possible to transform
the Democratic Party, the oldest American capitalist party, into the spearhead of a
"political revolution" that will bring about fundamental social change.
Former Vice President Biden is the personification of the decrepit and right-wing
character of the Democratic Party. In the past 10 days alone, Biden has declared himself a
candidate for the US Senate, rather than president, confused his wife and his sister as they
stood on either side of him, called himself an "Obiden Bama Democrat," and declared that 150
million Americans died in gun violence over the past decade. This is not just a matter of
Biden's declining mental state: it is the Democratic Party, not just its presidential
frontrunner, that is verging on political senility.
It is evident that the Democratic Party leadership in Congress, as well as the Biden
campaign and the Democratic National Committee, aims to run the 2020 campaign on the exact
model of Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016: portraying Trump as personally unqualified to be
president and as a Russian stooge, while opposing any significant social reform and
delivering constant reassurances to the ruling financial aristocracy that a restored
Democratic administration will follow in the footsteps of Obama, showering trillions on Wall
Street and doing the bidding of the military-intelligence apparatus.
One could ask of the nine ex-candidates who have now endorsed Biden, why they were
candidates in the first place? Why did they bother to run against the former vice president,
clearly the preferred candidate of the party establishment? None of them voices any
significant political differences with Biden. All of them hail the right-wing political
record of the Obama-Biden administration, even though that administration produced the social
and economic devastation that made possible the election of Donald Trump.
Even more revolting, if that is possible, is the embrace of Biden by the black Democratic
politicians. The former senator from Delaware is identified with some of the most repugnant
episodes in the history of race relations in America: the abusive treatment of Anita Hill,
when she testified against the nomination of Clarence Thomas, before Biden's Judiciary
Committee; an alliance with segregationist James Eastland on school integration in the early
1970s, highlighted at a debate by Kamala Harris, eight months before she endorsed Biden; and
the passage of a series of "law-and-order" bills that disproportionately jailed hundreds of
thousands of African Americans, all of them pushed through the Senate by Biden.
How did a politician who boasted of his close relationships with Eastland and Strom
Thurmond become the beneficiary of a virtual racial bloc vote by African Americans in the
Southern states? Because African American Democratic Party leaders, including
Representative James Clyburn in South Carolina and hundreds of others, represent one of the
most right-wing and politically corrupt sections of the party.
The thinking of this layer was summed up in a column Saturday in the
Washington Post by Colbert King, a former State Department official and local
banker, a prominent member of the African American elite in the nation's capital, who wrote
in outrage, "America's black billionaires have no place in a Bernie Sanders
world."
King denounced the suggestion that black CEOs and billionaires are "greedy, corrupt
threats to America's working families or the cause of economic disparities and human misery."
Voicing the fears of his class, he continued, "I know there are those out there who buy the
notion that America consists of a small class of privileged, rapacious super-rich lording
over throngs of oppressed, capitalist-exploited workers. You can see it in poll numbers
showing the share of Americans who prefer socialism to capitalism inching upward."
What the Washington Post columnist reveals is what Bernie Sanders has done
his best to cover up: the Democratic Party is a party of the capitalist class. It can no more
be converted to socialism than the CIA can become an instrument of the struggle against
American imperialism.
True, Sanders can dredge up Jesse Jackson for a last-minute endorsement, proof that
demagogues engaged in diverting mass left-wing sentiment into the graveyard of the Democratic
Party recognize and embrace each other across the decades. But with that exception, the
entire black Democratic Party establishment has lined up behind Biden -- including, most
recently, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot and Senator Kamala Harris.
Harris's statement is worth quoting. "I have decided that I am with great enthusiasm going
to endorse Joe Biden for president of the United States," she said. "I believe in Joe. I
really believe in him, and I have known him for a long time." The senator was no doubt
responding to the incentives dangled in front of her by Biden after she left the race last
December, when he gushed, "She is solid. She can be president someday herself. She can be the
vice president. She can go on to be a Supreme Court justice. She can be an attorney
general."
Sanders seeks to counter this all-out Democratic Party campaign for Biden by seeking
to woo sections of the trade union bureaucracy with appeals to economic nationalism. New
Sanders television ads in Michigan feature a United Auto Workers member declaring that his
state "has been decimated by trade deals," while Sanders declares that Biden backed NAFTA,
drawing the conclusion, "With a record like that, we can't trust him to protect American jobs
or defeat Donald Trump." The Vermont senator will find that very few auto workers follow the
political lead of the corrupt gangsters who head the UAW.
More than 13 million people, mainly workers and youth, voted for Sanders in 2016 in
the Democratic primaries and caucuses. Millions more continue to support him this year, with
the same result. Sanders will wrap up his campaign by embracing the right-wing nominee of the
Democratic Party and telling his supporters that this is the only alternative to the
election, and now re-election of Trump.
Indeed, in appearances on several Sunday television interview programs, Sanders went out
of his way to repeat, as he said on Fox News, "Joe Biden is a friend of mine. Joe Biden is a
decent guy. What Joe has said is if I win the nomination, he'll be there for me, and I have
said if he wins the nomination, I'll be there for him "
Sanders is not a panacea. He is a sheep dog. But neoliberal oligarchs and the Deep State are
afraid of sheep dog too. They need puppets.
Bernie Sanders is actually trying to save the Democratic Party from irrelevance. But
irrelevance does not bother party bureaucracy and Clintons who still rule the party that much:
all they want is money and plush positions.
Notable quotes:
"... 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 not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power -- which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. ..."
"... Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy, when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention seats empty. ..."
"... Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. ..."
"... Sanders misread the Democratic Party leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries. They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it. ..."
"... Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest? Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No. ..."
"... Biden represents the old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100 million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in office. ..."
There is only one choice in this election. 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. We will lose. The oligarchs made it abundantly clear, should
Bernie Sanders miraculously become the Democratic Party nominee, they would join forces with
the Republicans to crush him. Trump would, if Sanders was the nominee, instantly be shorn by
the Democratic Party elites of his demons and his propensity for tyranny. Sanders would be
red-baited -- as he was viciously Friday in The New York Times' " As Bernie
Sanders Pushed for Closer Ties, Soviet Union Spotted Opportunity " -- and turned into a
figure of derision and ridicule.
The oligarchs preach the sermon of the least-worst to us when they attempt to ram a Hillary
Clinton or a Biden down our throats but ignore it for themselves. They prefer Biden over Trump,
but they can live with either.
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 not jobs. It is not the climate. It is the primacy of corporate power --
which has extinguished our democracy and left most of the working class in misery -- and the
continued increase and consolidation of their wealth. It is impossible working within the
system to shatter the hegemony of oligarchic power or institute meaningful reform. Change, real
change, will only come by sustained acts of civil disobedience and mass mobilization, as with
the yellow vests movement in France and the British-based Extinction Rebellion . The longer we are
fooled by the electoral burlesque, the more disempowered we will become.
I was on the streets with protesters in Philadelphia outside the appropriately named Wells
Fargo Center during the 2016 Democratic Convention when hundreds of
Sanders delegates walked out of the hall. "Show me what democracy looks like!" they
chanted, holding Bernie signs above their heads as they poured out of the exits. "This is what
democracy looks like!"
Sanders' greatest tactical mistake was not joining them. He bowed before the mighty altar of
the corporate state. He had desperately tried to stave off a revolt by his supporters and
delegates on the eve of the convention by sending out repeated messages in his name -- most of
them authored by members of the Clinton campaign -- to be respectful, not disrupt the
nominating process and support Clinton. Sanders was a dutiful sheepdog, attempting to herd his
disgruntled supporters into the embrace of the Clinton campaign. At his moment of apostasy,
when he introduced a motion to nominate Clinton, his delegates had left hundreds of convention
seats empty.
After the 2016 convention, Sanders held rallies -- the crowds pitifully small compared to
what he had drawn when he ran as an insurgent -- on Clinton's behalf. He returned to the Senate
to loyally line up behind Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, whose power comes from his
ability to funnel tens of millions of dollars in corporate and Wall Street money to anointed
Democratic candidates. Sanders refused to support the lawsuit brought against the Democratic
National Committee for rigging the primaries against him. He endorsed Democratic candidates who
espoused the neoliberal economic and political positions he claims to oppose. Sanders, who
calls himself an independent, caucused as a Democrat. The Democratic Party determined his
assignments in the Senate. Schumer offered to make Sanders the head of the Senate Budget
Committee if the Democrats won control of the Senate. Sanders became a party apparatchik.
Sanders apparently believed that if he was obsequious enough to the Democratic Party elite,
they would give him
a chance in 2020 , a chance they denied him in 2016. Politics, I suspect he would argue, is
about compromise and the practical. This is true. But playing politics in a system that is not
democratic is about being complicit in the charade. Sanders misread the Democratic Party
leadership, swamp creatures of the corporate state. He misread the Democratic Party, which is a
corporate mirage. Its base can, at best, select preapproved candidates and act as props at
rallies and in choreographed party conventions. The Democratic Party voters have zero influence
on party politics or party policies. Sanders' naivete, and perhaps his lack of political
courage, drove away his most committed young supporters. These followers have not forgiven him
for his betrayal. They chose not to turn out to vote in the numbers he needs in the primaries.
They are right. He is wrong. We need to overthrow the system, not placate it.
Sanders is wounded. The oligarchs will go in for the kill. They will subject him to the same
character assassination, aided by the courtiers in the corporate press, that was directed at
Henry Wallace in 1948 and George McGovern in 1972, the only two progressive presidential
candidates who managed to seriously threaten the ruling elites since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
The feckless liberal class, easily frightened, is already abandoning Sanders, castigating his
supporters with their nauseating self-righteousness and championing Biden as a political
savior.
Trump and Biden are repugnant figures, doddering into old age with cognitive lapses and no
moral cores. Is Trump more dangerous than Biden? Yes. Is Trump more inept and more dishonest?
Yes. Is Trump more of a threat to the open society? Yes. Is Biden the solution? No.
Biden represents the
old neoliberal order . He personifies the betrayal by the Democratic Party of working men
and women that sparked the deep hatred of the ruling elites across the political spectrum. He
is a gift to a demagogue and con artist like Trump, who at least understands that these elites
are detested. Biden cannot plausibly offer change. He can only offer more of the same. And most
Americans do not want more of the same. The country's largest voting-age bloc, the 100
million-plus citizens who out of apathy or disgust do not vote, will once again stay home. This
demoralization of the electorate is by design. It will, I expect, give Trump another term in
office.
By voting
for Biden , you endorse the humiliation of courageous women such as Anita Hill who
confronted their abusers. You vote for the architects of the endless wars in the Middle East.
You vote for the apartheid state in Israel. You vote for wholesale surveillance of the public
by government intelligence agencies and the abolition of due process and habeas corpus. You
vote for austerity programs, including the destruction of welfare and cuts to Social
Security . You vote for NAFTA, free trade deals, de-industrialization, a decline in wages,
the loss of hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs and the offshoring of jobs to underpaid
workers who toil in sweatshops in China or Vietnam. You vote for the assault on public
education and the transfer of federal funds to for-profit and Christian charter schools. You
vote for the doubling of our prison population, the tripling and quadrupling of sentences and
huge expansion of crimes meriting the death penalty. You vote for militarized police who gun
down poor people of color with impunity. You vote against the Green New Deal and immigration
reform. You vote for limiting a woman's right to
abortion and reproductive rights. You vote for a segregated public-school system in which
the wealthy receive educational opportunities and poor people of color are denied a chance. You
vote for punitive levels of student debt and the inability to free yourself of debt obligations
through bankruptcy . You
vote for deregulating the banking industry and the abolition of Glass-Steagall. You vote for
the for-profit insurance and pharmaceutical corporations and against universal health care. You
vote for bloated defense budgets. You vote for the use of unlimited oligarchic and corporate
money to buy our elections. You vote for a politician who during his time in the Senate
abjectly served the interests of
MBNA , the largest independent credit card company headquartered in Delaware, which also
employed Biden's son Hunter.
There are no substantial political differences between the Democrats and Republicans. We
have only the illusion of participatory democracy. The Democrats and their liberal apologists
adopt tolerant positions on issues regarding race, religion, immigration, women's rights and
sexual identity and pretend this is politics. The right wing uses those on the margins of
society as scapegoats. The culture wars mask the reality. Both parties are full partners in the
reconfiguration of American society into a form of neofeudalism. It only depends on how you
want it dressed up.
"By fostering an illusion among the powerless classes" that it can make their interests a
priority, the Democratic Party "pacifies and thereby defines the style of an opposition party
in an inverted totalitarian system," political philosopher Sheldon Wolin writes.
The Democrats will once again offer up a least-worst alternative while, in fact, doing
little or nothing to thwart the march toward corporate totalitarianism. What the public wants
and deserves will again be ignored for what the corporate lobbyists demand. If we do not
respond soon to the social and economic catastrophe that has been visited on most of the
population, we will be unable to thwart the rise of corporate tyranny and a
Christian fascism.
We need to reintegrate those who have been pushed aside back into the society, to heal the
ruptured social bonds, to give workers dignity, empowerment and protection. We need a universal
health care system, especially as we barrel toward a global pandemic. We need programs that
provide employment with sustainable wages, job protection and pensions. We need quality public
education for all Americans. We need to rebuild our infrastructure and end the squandering of
our resources on war. We need to halt corporate pillage and regulate Wall Street and
corporations. We need to respond with radical and immediate measures to curb carbon emissions
and save ourselves from ecocide and extinction. We don't need a "Punch and Judy" show between
Trump and Biden. But that, along with corporate tyranny, is what we seem fated to get, unless
we take to the streets and tear the house down.
On Monday, two 'moderate' candidates with a modicum of vote-getting ability, Amy Klobuchar and
Pete Buttigieg, dropped out of the race and endorsed Joe Biden for the Democratic nomination.
It seemed likely that the Democratic National Committee had been at work, consulting with such
behind-the-scenes operators as Terry McAuliffe (a heavy-hitting Clinton donor and ex-governor
of Virginia) and Rahm Emanuel (Obama's chief of staff and ex-mayor of Chicago). In the days
after Bernie Sanders's victory in the Nevada primary, they would have put through many phone
calls and sealed many promises, and not only to Buttigieg and Klobuchar. The order of the day
had become Stop Sanders By Any Means Necessary. The lukewarm interest in Biden had to be
screwed up to a pitch of enthusiasm overnight.
It worked. Late on Tuesday evening, everything changed. Of the 14 states in the Super
Tuesday primaries, Sanders won California, Colorado, Utah and Vermont. Biden took Alabama,
Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas and
Virginia. In total votes, Biden now leads Sanders by a proportion of five to four; in the
delegate count, his margin is similar. The remaining candidates add up to less than a third of
the Sanders haul. As I was revising this paragraph, Bloomberg dropped out of the race, and he
too endorsed Biden, leaving only Biden, Sanders and (lagging far behind) Elizabeth Warren to
fight it out.
In the space of a week, the Democratic Party went from the strong possibility of a Sanders
nomination to the extreme likelihood that Biden will lead the ticket. Both men have done
consistently well in conjectural polling against Trump (both leading by 5 per cent or so). The
case against Sanders is that he could never survive a full-blown propaganda storm by
Republicans that would portray his democratic socialism as identical with support for
totalitarian communism. With Biden, the strategy is simpler but untested. Trump will go after
his son Hunter's involvement in the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings. Never mind that in
the matter of nepotism, the Trump Organisation is multiple pots calling the kettle black.
Biden's weakness on this point resembles Hillary Clinton's weakness in 2016. The pay-to-play
shadow over the Clinton Foundation and her decision to give expensive talks to Wall Street
firms diminished the contrast with Trump. The same will be true of Biden: besides Hunter and
Ukraine, there are his career-long relationships with the Delaware-based credit industry and
his conservative position in major legislative battles over civil rights. Biden helped to write
the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, whose consequences became a deep
embarrassment to the Clintons. Still, the numbers of African Americans voting for him on Super
Tuesday in the Deep South, in Texas and elsewhere, have put some of these apprehensions to
rest.
Sanders won't be quitting. A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct
a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg and Warren had lately put
themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been
nothing like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality
can be denied the nomination on the first ballot and defeated later by a coalition. If Biden
now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance. On the other hand, his verbal
gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I was
a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South
Africa for demonstrating against the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive
fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would
be a case, yet again, of the right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice
against the party's own insurgent energy. But the difference of personalities may matter.
Though many (perhaps most) people have felt superior to Biden at some point, he is hard to
dislike. 'One thing he has going for him,' said a voter who supported Warren but has resigned
herself to Biden, 'is that he is not an angry man. He may lose his temper but anger is not his
core motivating force.' That makes a contrast with Trump, all right.
Could Sanders find a second wind? He has yet to explain with the requisite patience what he
means by democratic socialism; and the liberal-corporate media have so relentlessly caricatured
him as a person that a second speech may be in order just to tell people who he is. Take a trip
to Vermont and you find that no one has a bad word about Bernie. The affection has nothing to
do with politics. On the bulletin board of a grocery store in 2016, I saw this sign: 'Senator
Sanders will march in annual cow parade.' He was arrested once – he didn't have to
imagine it – in a protest for civil rights. He took part in Martin Luther King's 1963
March on Washington.
This is nothing like the picture one gets from grinning CNN presenters and their pundits, or
from the incapable Democratic National Committee. The DNC ruled out a separate debate on
climate change – the single issue that most moves thinking persons to regard the Trump
presidency as a catastrophe. They likewise excluded Fox News from any role in any of the
debates; but why? Fox was going to report on the debates anyway. Why not give their audience
the full context? There have been notorious permitted acts of collusion, as with the exchange
in the Iowa debate between a moderator and two candidates:
Mod: In 2018, [Senator Sanders], you told [Senator Warren] that you did not believe that a
woman could win the election. Why did you say that?
Sanders: Well, as a matter of fact, I didn't say it ...
Mod: So Senator Sanders, I do want to be clear here. You're saying, that you never told
Senator Warren that a woman could not win the election.
Sanders: That is correct.
Mod: Senator Warren, what did you think when Senator Sanders told you that a woman could
not win the election?
The political diet of the debates so far has been largely confined to the pros and (mostly)
cons of Medicare for All, the menace of Vladimir Putin, and general attitudes toward women and
persons of colour. They have contained very few questions about America's wars in the Greater
Middle East, close to nothing about climate change, and nothing (outside the narrow ground of
the impeachment) about Trump's corruption of the federal departments and agencies. For both the
party and the media, treatment of US politics has been channelled into a familiar cultural
'theming' of race and gender. The National Public Radio Guide to
Super Tuesday dealt entirely with demographic reminders such as 'A wild card [in
California] is black voters' or 'Maine is the whitest state to vote on Super Tuesday.' The
Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as
separate nations. Women are a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African
American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified
categories that self-divide and surrender. The only other weapon of note has been an attempted
revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with two anti-Sanders
hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian
agent. The paper has even called him the 'Teflon' candidate – an epithet originally
applied to Ronald Reagan. But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its
captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure. A recent leak from a misinterpreted
fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare. Was
Putin once more gearing up to steal an election? Was Sanders complicit, or was he merely duped?
All this while the planet burns.
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency.
They have prospered wonderfully from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high
ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny the plausibility of the charge
likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised
propaganda campaign that was fed into debates as well as news coverage, and at last through
public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into the one acceptable box.
us
presidential election 2020
5 March 2020 at 12:45pm Charles Evans says: Of all the places on the Internet I was
expecting to find rambling, conspiracy-theorist nonsense about the race for the Democratic
nomination, the LRB Blog wasn't one of them!
An alternative assessment to the author's sneering, fact-free deflections is that
Sanders isn't particularly popular in the Democratic party. His talk of a 'movement' is
mostly hot air (exit polling suggests that his coalition of young liberals isn't turning
out as he claimed they would). Issues around his record (three decades in Congress with
almost no legislative achievements to speak of), his health (the next heart attack can't be
too far away), his support for brutal 'socialist' dictatorships abroad (Cuban Latinx
communities in Florida aren't keen on his admiration for Castro), his angry-old-guy
temperament, all of these things are turn-offs for large swathes of the Democratic party
(just look at how unpopular he was with working-class African Americans in South
Carolina!).
It's easy to claim that Sanders' failures are down to a DNC fix-up job, abetted by a
'corporate-liberal media' that are 'comfortable with the Trump presidency', but there is no
evidence of this conspiracist nonsense unless you're wilfully looking for it. Sanders just
isn't that popular, and a massive democratic event is starting to demonstrate that. David
may not like that, but he'll have to accept it.
5 March 2020 at 10:25pm says: @Charles Evans Sanders won the popular vote in the
first three states, something no other presidential candidate in history has
accomplished. Polls have shown that he is the most popular Senator in America and that he
has the highest favorability rating among Democrats, closely followed by Joe Biden. He
has by far the largest and most loyal donor base in the race, made up of small donations
from working people. The fact that you are either unaware of or in denial about Sanders'
immense popularity in the party and beyond points to a corporate media conspiracy far
more than David's piece, which does no such thing.
6 March 2020 at 12:08am Echo Parking-Lot says: @Charles Evans You're saying the
Democrats should care (in the primaries, especially) about the sour grapes of a bunch of
Batista apparatchiks? 54% of Cubans in Cuba voted for Trump in 2016.
And for the record, admiring Cubans' staggering literacy rate, world-renowned health
care system, their track record of dealing with hurricanes, and the ability to endure
50 years of being throttled economically by the US, is not the same thing as "support
for brutal 'socialist' dictatorships abroad."
6 March 2020 at 10:02am Charles Evans says: @ The first three states are Iowa, New
Hampshire and Nevada. The first two are tiny, lily-white states that make up a tiny
proportion of the Democratic Party's selectorate, let alone the country. Winning he
popular vote in them means little (Bernie got 45652 votes in Iowa, or 26.5%. Hardly a
huge popular mandate). Nevada is also tiny, though higher in Latinx voters.
Polling for 'popularity' doesn't mean much - most politicians are unpopular, and the
question "Do you like this person" is very different to the question "Do you want this
person to be our nominee for President". Conflating one with the other is
intellectually dishonest, at best.
Having a comparatively large donor base, made up of small donors, also does not
necessarily mean popularity. The American electorate is over 150 million people -
having a few hundred thousand people pitch in a few dollars is, again, not a good
indicator of popularity. To suggest that it is "immense" within the Party suggests you
might need to venture outside of your political bubble.
On the 'corporate media' conspiracy, I was literally quoting David's words, which he
uses twice in the piece. I'll be clear - I'm not opposed to Bernie Sanders, his
message, his policies, or his ability to be the President. I'm clear-eyed about the
challenges he faces, though, and he won't surmount them if his supporters persist with
a fantasy view of the the world, rather than one based in reality.
6 March 2020 at 11:48am Charles Evans says: @Echo Parking-Lot How, exactly, did the
Cuban citizens of Cuba for 54% for Trump in 2016? You might want to think again about
that one.
The thing is, Sanders hasn't merely admired some of the good things that Cuba has
managed to do for its people. And he hasn't limited his support to Cuba. Sanders has
supported oppressive regimes in Venezuela, Cuba and other countries, based on their
somewhat-nebulous self-proclaimed 'socialist' nature. This is a blind spot for plenty
of the more radical Left, both in America, the UK and elsewhere. I wouldn't say that
disqualifies him from the Democratic nomination, but it's an issue that needs
addressing.
Just as Sanders's supporters love to bring up his Democratic opponents' records on
various issues (Biden on civil rights and social security, Bloomberg on being a
billionaire Republican etc), it's fair game to analyse Sanders's record too. That's
what the right-wing media will do, that's what Trump's campaign will do. Better to deal
with those criticisms now, rather than two weeks from polling day.
6 March 2020 at 3:06pm says: @Charles Evans Call me an over-simplifying peddler of
false historical analogies; but to me the bickering and name-calling pervading the
Democratic nomination process is just another manifestation of the Left's endemic
fissiparousness. Think thirties Germany and the German communists' ferocious enmity for
the socialists. We do know how that ended, don't we?
Tom Weymes
6 March 2020 at 3:06pm says: @Echo Parking-Lot If "54% of Cubans in Cuba voted for
Trump in 2016," as you claim, is that more or less than the percentage of Russians in
Russia who voted for Trump in 2016? Or might you be referring to Cuban-American citizens
in Florida?
6 March 2020 at 4:15pm says: @ The only popularity poll that matters is voting. Even
Sanders admitted to his disappointment in turnout among his vaunted youth vote.
7 March 2020 at 2:58am m sam says: @Charles Evans My, my, my. Sounds like a bit of
Sanders Derangement Syndrome we have here. What's all this talk about "Bernie Bros" when
everywhere I mostly encounter the exact opposite, like "Charles Evans" here. Sure, he
didn't do as well as he thought, but he did much better than 2016. So there's that. I
think Sanders hatred blinds many Democratic partisans into assuming their disgust of
Sanders and his supporters is far more widespread than it really is. I think the case is
much more easily explained by most people not being firmly committed one way or the other
, and as polls show: Democrats like Sander's on the issues but are swayed by the the
moderate electability arguments (which I personally find completely facile).
5 March 2020 at 3:39pm RH says: If Sanders picks a black running mate, all need not be
lost. Perhaps he should have done that before Super Tuesday, but there is still time.
Incidentally, 'All this while the planet burns' would be a fitting title for the entire
LRB blog (much better than 'LRB blog').
5 March 2020 at 3:58pm says: Bernie eked out a slim majority in VT winning 11 delegates
to Biden's 5 with 8 un-pledged (super) delegates. He has no base in the State's Democratic
Party, nor anywhere else. His record as Mayor of Burlington was great but hardly 'a
revolution'. In Congress Bernie did what all VT. reps do: help constituents navigate federal
bureaucracy, support the State's military installations and vets, 'bring home the bacon (
'small state premiums on every appropriation') and protect its businesses, like the Captive
Insurance Industry with its domestic 'off-shore' tax status. It's like what Henry James said
about Walt Whitman: a wonderful 'wound-dresser' during the war but subsequently long on
self-regard and bombast, short on refinement and poetry. American voters, on the whole, are
not too 'dumb' to see that. Like heavy weight champion George Foreman in Zaire, the 'dope got
roped.'
6 March 2020 at 10:05pm says: @ Please. Let's not quote Henry James on Walt Whitman.
Wound dresser Whitman was. Where was HJ during the war? And what did HJ have to say about
American democracy? And who is still read?
7 March 2020 at 6:38am says: @ I think I am correct in recalling Henry James
volunteering for the ambulance corps during the first world war at the end of his life. I
also think this had something to do with his changing nationalities.
5 March 2020 at 10:01pm says: Thanks to David Bromwich for his consistently readable,
well-informed and original commentary on U.S. politics. I would happily read a lot more of
this.
6 March 2020 at 3:25pm says: I hope when the Trump era is over and when members of the
political class begin working together again we'll see an end to the kind of overwrought
polemics from so-called "progressive" voices like David Bromwich who condemn mainstream media
as being "corporate-liberal" and being perfectly comfortable with the Trump presidency
because, as he imagines it, they have profited from "his entertainment value, even as they
staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. "
This is the same rubbish-thinking that I thought was over and done with during my
college years in the late Sixties.
6 March 2020 at 4:16pm says: @ ok boomer
6 March 2020 at 3:35pm Mark E. Herlihy says: The core of this blog post is the author's
fantasy of coördinated back room phone calls, arm-twisting, and promises of patronage
drawn straight from cinema farces of the 1930s. One can almost smell the cigars. Never mind
that this is wholly evidence free speculation – the counterfactual is the reality of
the result in the South Carolina primary, which the post conveniently entirely ignores. Never
mind that the post identifies no plausible mechanism for the imagined back room deals to be
communicated to, and forced upon, the Super Tuesday electorate in the time available. Never
mind that there was never a likelihood that Sanders was headed to a clear victory at the
National Convention, and that , to the contrary, the likelihood of a brokered convention had
soared to nearly 70% before Super Tuesday.
In reality, nothing is yet wholly resolved. Polling suggests that both Biden and Sanders
have an excellent chance to beat Trump, although the gut sense of the electorate appears to
be far less comfortable with the case for Sanders. Nevertheless, Sanders much vaunted
"movement" of youthful progressives still seems to have difficulty getting its membership
to the polls. Moreover, evidence of large scale crossover of moderate Republicans, sickened
by the Trump clown show, to support what they see as a moderate Democratic candidate, is
beginning to emerge, particularly as evidenced in the exceptionally high turnout in
Northern Virginia and the exit polling there. Beating Trump appears to be the order of the
day, as it should be (along with flipping the Senate, a goal that would be ill-served by
Sanders at the top of the Democratic ticket).
As for the "corporate-liberal media" as the post would have it: certainly, there has
been a no doubt profitable stretch on the late night shows of mocking Trump. But American
culture is fecund with targets for such satire – SNL is not in its 45th year for lack
of them. And the post's leap from the success of late night shows in lampooning Trump, to a
presumed charge by Sanders that "the fix is in" is the mother of all non sequiturs. Mr
Bromwich may be so jaded as to believe that the dreaded "Main Stream Media" is
coördinating with the equally dreaded "Democratic Party Establishment" to perpetuate
Trump in office so that Stephen Colbert and company can continue to rake in the bucks, But
I see no reason why the LRB should foster such delusions.
6 March 2020 at 4:08pm says: Conspiracy or not, what are the essentials for our
"democracy"?
Number one to defeat Trump?
Isn't our "democracy" today largely a "plutocracy"? How else to explain the votes Bloomberg
still won?
Therefore, sadly, important to get Bloomberg's funding behind the anti-Trump candidate.
Pity that Sanders who, in contrast to Biden, has so many good ideas, speaks (or should one
say rants angrily) only to his disciples and ignores the sensitivities of the others whose
votes he needs to win. Understandable, sadly, that he forfeited the backing of the Democrat
establishment.
If the corrupt Biden becomes the Trump-opposition candidate, and if (oh if only) he wins,
there should be plenty of progressive Democrats in the House to inspire and steer him
before his next heart attack. Who will be chosen to run as his V-P?
6 March 2020 at 4:14pm Steven Morphy-Godchaux says: Ok boomers. Enjoy your socialized
medicine and retirement while your kids and grandkids pay criminal amounts for healthcare and
education. And keep telling us those stories about how great you were in the 1960s, too. We
love it.
7 March 2020 at 5:26pm Graucho says: @Steven Morphy-Godchaux Did I misunderstand? If
you are talking American kids and grandkids they are already facing paying criminal
amounts for healthcare and education, doubly so if the Republicans stay in power. I
thought the Sanders pitch was to stop this happening.
6 March 2020 at 4:15pm Graham Winyard says: If the Democrat party establishment is as
cunning as David Bromwich implies, how come the resultant choice of candidates is so
alarmingly uninspiring?
6 March 2020 at 4:19pm says: "Corporate Liberal Media" smacks too much of "Lamestream
Media" or "Fake News." A bad sign.
6 March 2020 at 4:35pm says: I suggest, dear author, that whatever the Democratic
"establishment" (an oxymoron of titanic proportions, cf. Will Rogers)or the media wanted, at
base what happened last Tuesday is that many millions of rational, strategic voters saw a
path to victory over the evil sordidness of Trump by voting for a decent, well-experienced
(with all of his many flaws) Biden - elites of all sorts be damned. It was the most thrilling
turn of events in my 50 years of voting, pure and simple.
6 March 2020 at 4:37pm Sue Stevenson says: Excellent summation!
I do find it interesting that any examination of the machinations of power draw
accusations of "conspiracy, conspiracy!" Whether it's Sanders, or Assange, or the CIA, or
US foreign interference, it's always this accusation even though the examinations are based
on traceable evidence.
It always feels creepy, watching how easy the narrative continues to be massaged so
certain groups of people can consent to it once again.
What is heartening is seeing the number of people who are seeing through to the jaws of
the machine. I agree, it was unexpected – and heartening – to see it here.
Thank you.
6 March 2020 at 5:03pm says: I'd like to second everything Charles Evans says. You may
have gone to the mat for the most unpopular Labour candidate in history, but please allow us
to try to defeat Trump by not nominating a candidate completely out of touch with the
American psyche. Yes, he's popular among young leftists, but this group is woefully
inadequate to attain an electoral college majority. I consider myself a left of center
Democrat for whom Biden is not ideal, but he has the best chance of beating Trump in key
states. If you lived under the Trump dictatorship you would not be so cavalier about choosing
Sanders. Your media critique sounds just like Trump's, only instead of demonizing him, you
say it demonizes Sanders. With Labour journalists like you, I understand how Labour went down
to such a crushing defeat.
6 March 2020 at 5:19pm mhenriday says: There is no question but that the establishment in
the United States, whether neoliberal or neoconservative - not least those claiming to be for
"anyone but Trump" - far prefer a Mr Trump as US president to a Mr Sanders in that office. Mr
Trump is entertainment plus tax reductions for the rich, all the while increasing the already
bloated spending on the military and the (un)intelligence sector, from which they profit ; Mr
Sanders would tax them and devote resources to dealing with the climate crisis threatening us
all. The choice is easy....
Henri
6 March 2020 at 5:20pm dsflynn01473 says: Sanders is losing to Biden because the majority
of Democrat primary voters favor a more moderate candidate and believe Sanders is
unelectable. The media, of course influences these perceptions. But to suggest that is
because the corporate media are enjoying the entertainment value of Trump follies is dopey.
The Democrat party for block Fox News because it is anathema to party regulars. But both
Sanders and the moderate wing participated in Fox town meetings. I agree the major media
offer a narrow view of the political issues facing voters but they had a tough job. There was
hardly any disagreement among the moderates and leftist candidates. The only major area was
on the speed of providing a single payer healthcare system for all and that was all about
electibility. It was the moderate vote that was fissiparous (thanks) until Supertuesday. Now
it is clearer where the votes always were. There were many keen insights in this piece, the
conspiracy theory wasn't one of them.
6 March 2020 at 5:30pm dsflynn01473 says: Here is some fodder for investigative
journalism.. Any fundraiser can tell you a fundraising campaign succeeds by raising large
gifts from a few. Their rule of thumb is 80% of the amount raised comes from 20% of the
donors. Moreover the cost of raising, recording and reporting the 20% often exceeds the cost.
There is something missing from the analysis of campaigns claiming to raise the bulk of their
funds from small donors. And it isn't the fact that the more small donors you have despite
the cost, the smaller will be the average donation.
6 March 2020 at 7:00pm LarryFeinberg says: Bromwich would have us believe that the
Democratic Party establishment and "the liberal-corporate media" are conspiring to deny a
genuine progressive a chance at winning the U.S. presidency. I think he is mistaken. There
are surely very few in the liberal political and media establishment who object in principle
to things like universal medical coverage, free college tuition, measures to combat climate
change, or a tax system that works to the advantage of the middle and lower classes rather
than the very wealthy. Their objections to Sanders are rooted in political realism. Outside
of places like Vermont and the California Bay Area, the U.S. electorate has never been
friendly to candidates with avowedly left-wing agendas. By contrast, those who advocate
incremental progressive change (see the 2018 midterm elections) stand a decent chance of
success. Bernie's socialism, however he defines it, would be – already is -- a rich
target for the Republican propaganda machine, and his nomination by the Dems would virtually
assure four more years of Trump. Assuming he did somehow manage to get elected, how would
Sanders get Congress and the courts to go along with a program of sweeping economic and
social transformation? Obama, with a Democratic majority in both houses, was barely able to
get his ACA passed. Bernie's campaign rhetoric suggests it could all be accomplished by fiat.
Not what one expects from a democratic socialist.
7 March 2020 at 2:22am SMSRHINEBECK says: One shouldn't forget that Yale University
Sterling Professor of English David Bromwich is himself part of the US "corporate-liberal"
nomenklatura that he takes aim at. I'm sure his reputation in his field is solid, but his
moonlighting-for-fun as a political commentator has never been successful, in my opinion, nor
is it here.
His LRB Blog essay, which issues from the very comfortable bubble he lives in, reeks of the
classroom.
Maybe British readers buy his commentary, but this retired American academic, older than
Bernie Sanders, does not. Bromwich doesn't know what he's talking about.
The black voters in South Carolina's Democratic primary last week and the Southern voters
on Super Tuesday (a preponderance of them black) aren't buying what Bernie Sanders is
selling. Nor am I.
7 March 2020 at 3:11am m sam says: While I agree that Hunter Biden, as a political issue,
is a weakness of the Biden candidacy, since Joe Biden hasn't handled the issue well at all so
far (it doesn't take a genius to tell that calling potential voters fat over the issue isn't
a winning strategy). But I don't think that will be all to look for. Of course Trump is going
to paint Biden as suffering from dementia, and frankly I think that is also going to be an
easy argument to make stick.
Also if he makes some serious error like picking a Republican running mate (as he talked
about doing in December), voters will be turned off entirely.
The pitfalls of Biden as a candidate are huge, and if electability is the most important
thing in my opinion Biden is the worst pick. Trump will run circles around him, he does not
have a large and enthusiastic group of supporters, and really the only thing Biden has
going for him is fear of Trump. And frankly, I don't think that single issue is enough to
win.
7 March 2020 at 3:55am says: A few points before I put my keyboard back to gainful
employment. First, Bernie has always been good at good at constituent service, as one
commenter noted and own experience with him bore out, but it does not mean he's good at
making legislation or policy. Bernie was so bad at those aspects of public office that he
lost his one run a the Governor's seat to Madeleine Kunin, who did legislate and make policy.
Note the paucity of endorsements from elected officials in Vermont, none of whom endorsed him
in 2016, notably Howard Dean, who has publicly said that Bernie is only out for Bernie. My
next point is that both Senators Bernie Sanders or Warren are from states with Republican
governors. Election to the presidency or vice-presidency by either or both, as some have
suggested, would entail that the GOP would get one or two seats in the next Senate,
effectively maintaining the legislative roadblock built by Senator McConnell and his
enablers. In short, does anyone want Bernie in the White House and Mitch in charge of
everything else in DC? In my state of Wisconsin, I know too many voters who sat out the 2016
election out of spite and are now in their small ways responsible for the Roberts Court. I
prefer to imagine President Biden nominating Merrick Garland and Barack Obama to be the 10th
and 11th SCOTUS Justices to a filibuster-proof Senate controlled by the Democrats. I can
dream, and Bernie can't pass a three-car funeral, as my former Rep. Dave Obey used to say.
7 March 2020 at 4:39am George Hoffman says: Chris Matthews had an emotional meltdown on
MSDNC worthy of Three Mile Island after Bernie Sanders won the Nevada primary. He compared
Bernie's win to an incident in a history book he was reading the previous night about a
French leader calling up Churchill and informing him of the Nazi Wehrmacht's blitzkrieg
victory over the French Army in 1940. "Can't you do something?" Matthews hollered acting the
part of Churchill. "No! It's over!" Matthews replied frantically now acting the part of the
French leader. The panelists on the show watched Matthews performance with silent horror.
Bernie has relatives who died in the Holocaust. Matthews reminded me during his meltdown of
Bob Dylan's hapless protagonist in Dylan's classic song, "Ballad of a Thin Man," with its sad
refrain: "You know something's happening / But you don't know what it is / Do you, Mister
Jones?" That describes the hysteria to Bernie Sanders and his progressive armies of the night
who are waging guerrilla warfare against aging baby boomers who have become paid court
stenographers in the MSM. They have their marching orders from the Democratic elites and the
oligarchs on Wall Street. That's not a conspiracy theory. And I can't really blame them.
Getting paid six figures for mouthing the party lines that the elites want to brainwash the
electorate isn't chump change in the gig economy. They must sabotage Bernie's last chance. Of
course, even the suits knew Matthew's performance piece was a bridge too far. They fired him
after two decades as the host of Hardball. Even if Bernie goes down in flames like Amelia
Earhart, it's slowly dawning on boomers this is moment is their last harrah. But a more
poignant historical allusion for Matthews, who like so many successful baby boomers suffers
from a pronounced narcissistic personality, would have been for him to imitate with a gauche
French accent King Louis XV of France, "Apres moi, la deluge." It would have added to the
melodrama. The moneyed boomers who still control Democratic Party are having a slow motion
nervous breakdown. Progressives such as AOC, Bernie's partner in crime, wait in the wings.
What they don't realize is they have become the parents they protested against in the
sixties, and they have grown old without growing wise. They wanted a revolution, but the
Beatles broke up out long ago, and now the revolution in the Democratic Party is against
them. What a bummer trip, man.
7 March 2020 at 6:21am semitone says: Actually, Bernie Sanders has been very effective at
turning out the vote.
There have been large increases in turnout in several primary states so far, all (except
Nevada) for Sanders' opponents. In Virginia – a swing state that the Democrats simply
must win in November – turnout nearly doubled compared to 2016.
Biden beat Sanders by a more than 2-1 margin.
7 March 2020 at 8:01am K. Srinivasan says: This follows a tradition in the manner the
Democratic Party establishment and the mainstream American. Press conduct themselves. The
first quotation refers to the 1944 Democratic Vice Presidential nomination, the second, the
press coverage of his 1948 campaign for the Presidency..
''Wallace had the support of a majority of delegates, as well as the overwhelming majority
of Democrats around the nation. In 1944, a Gallup poll found that 65 percent of Democrats
supported Wallace as FDR's running mate, while the relatively unknown Truman earned support
from just 2 percent.
'On Thursday, July 20, the second night of the Democratic National Convention, a huge
pro-Wallace demonstration erupted. Senator Claude Pepper of Florida, one of the most
liberal members of Congress, tried to fight his way to the podium to put Wallace's name in
nomination -- a move that likely would've resulted in a stampede of votes. But the chair of
the convention, Philadelphia Mayor David Lawrence, suddenly called for a voice vote to
adjourn for the day. Despite the clear overwhelming vocal majority of "nays!", Lawrence
gaveled the convention to a close with Senator Pepper just a few feet away from the
microphones.
'By the next day, the all-night efforts of Hannegan, Chicago Mayor Kelly, Bronx County
Democratic boss Ed Flynn and others had paid off: Although Wallace led on the first ballot
with 429.5 votes (Truman had 319.5), he was significantly short of a majority. By the
second ballot, the rush to Truman was on."
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/veepstakes-history-vice-president-fdr-roosevelt-harry-truman-henry-wallace-james-byrnes-1944-democratic-convention-214012
Re 1948 mainstream press:
"In his assault on the South last week, Henry Wallace acted more like an agitator than a
presidential candidate.
'He ostentatiously rode through cities and towns with his Negro secretary in the seat
beside him. He chose the homes of Negro supporters for meals and overnight stops."
TIME, 13th September, 1948
7 March 2020 at 9:50am semitone says: Meanwhile, in Michigan (another must-win state come
November) Bernie is about to run attack ads on the likely Democrat nominee for President.
From the Guardian:
""Michigan is an enormously important state," Sanders said ... "The people of Michigan were
devastated by trade agreements which I vigorously opposed and Joe Biden supported.""
Please remember this before you hit "confirm" on that donation to the Sanders
campaign.
7 March 2020 at 5:37pm Graucho says: My one doubt about Biden revolves around his habit
of plagiarism. It's a mark of laziness and an inability to think creatively. You can bet that
Trump has this ammunition in his locker if it comes down to a Sleepy Jo attack in an
election.
7 March 2020 at 9:42pm says: This has been a most mysterious conversation. Unless I am
much mistaken the U.S. is about to face some very tough issues, climate change, lack of
preparation for major catastrophes, (epidemics etc) dealing with the difficulties of
globalisation and connectedness, and epidemics, just for a start. So, presumably one should
be at least minimally interested in the choice of a Democratic candidate who would not just
beat Trump but would be capable of facing up to these problems.
But the whole debate here is about who is popular with whom and whether the elite is trying
to sideline candidates who might not agree with the views of might disagree with the
establishment.
That, we are told ,has to be someone from the centre, a pretty empty place at the moment
and not full of "moderate" voters all yearning to support any character with no proven
experience at handling any of the problems I have mentioned, without any apparent
convictions and whose main characteristic is that he is likeable!!
It is also strange that the so called "progressive moderates" consider that the U. S could
not afford universal healthcare when it proudly presents itself as the richest nation on
earth and all the other OECD countries have some version of such care.
If one were really conspiracy minded one might think that the Republicans have carefully
engineered all of this to make the only candidate who could be beaten by Trump in a debate,
the nominee. But it is difficult to believe that they are so smart.
8 March 2020 at 12:31am Graucho says: @ As a footnote to preparedness for the corona
outbreak, at time of writing the death rate in the U.S. at 6% is an outlier way above any
other country. One suspects that the discrepancy lies in the denominator, not the
numerator. Namely, that it is so expensive to seek medical help in the U.S. that many
with symptoms are just not revealing themselves. Whether an epidemic dies out or baloons
is contingent on the pool of infected persons at large. It takes a hurt to learn. If the
U.S. ends up with the worst outbreak of any country it might at least demonstrate the
folly of leaving medical care to the free market.
Over the years Freeman Dyson, who died on 28 February at the age of 96, corrected mistakes I
made, often in print, with letters written with great... Next Post In PazarkuleSami Kent
This site requires the use of Javascript to provide the best possible experience. Please
change your browser settings to allow Javascript content to run. About
I agree that West seems to contradict himself. But you must realize that "what people think" is largely determined by what
people with money tell them to think.
I don't think we can fault Bernie for being too moralistic. Morals are what determine ultimately our quality of life. We have
to chose, at present, between our morals, and the morals of money, and the morals of hate.
and, being human, the way they all get mixed up and contradictory even in the same sentence.
My answer for now is try like hell to get Bernie elected. Be ready to switch to Biden if necessary to keep Trumpism from getting
elected-entrenched, And in either case keep working to get the Bernie-type morals into policy whether Bernie gets elected or not.
I think that last will involve some serious re-thinking by Progressives about politics as well as policy. My opinion is that
some Progressives have themselves bought too much into the morality of money and of hate, but that is a much longer discussion
than anyone here would put up with.
likbez , March 9, 2020 12:11 pm
> Listen to Cornel West for a real understanding of what has happened and what are our options.
There are no options left for neoliberal Dems. This is a typical political Zugzwang. The only hope is Coronavirus (as an act
of God). Otherwise it looks like they already surrendered elections to Trump.
Biden is a dead end into which neoliberal Dems drove themselves.
See, for example
A possibility remains, therefore, that the Democrats will conduct a 'brokered convention'. Secondary candidates like Buttigieg
and Warren had lately put themselves in the anti-popular posture of endorsing such a proceeding (though there's been nothing
like it since the 1950s): at a brokered convention, a candidate with a solid plurality can be denied the nomination on the
first ballot and defeated later by a coalition.
If Biden now runs far ahead of Sanders, he may sew it up in advance.
On the other hand, his verbal gaffes (announcing himself a candidate for the Senate rather than the presidency; saying 'I
was a Democratic caucus') and his fabricated or false memories (a non-existent arrest in South Africa for demonstrating against
the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela) have exposed a cognitive fragility that some people fear could make him ridiculous by November.
A Biden-Trump contest in 2020 would resemble Clinton-Trump in at least one respect. It would be a case, yet again, of the
right wing of the Democratic Party making the conventional choice against the party's own insurgent energy.
The Democrats and their media outworks are treating Latinos, African Americans and whites as separate nations. Women are
a nation, too – parsed (where useful) as Latino, African American or white.
So the answer to Trump's divide and conquer comes in the form of these college-certified categories that self-divide and
surrender.
The only other weapon of note has been an attempted revival of the Cold War. On 23 February, the New York Times led with
two anti-Sanders hatchet jobs, targeting him as both a destroyer of the Democratic Party and a possible Russian agent
But the mainstream media and their captive party, the party and its captive media, show no sign of letting up the pressure.
A recent leak from a misinterpreted fragment of a report by the Director of National Intelligence became a two-day Red Scare
The truth is that the corporate-liberal media are comfortable with the Trump presidency. They have prospered wonderfully
from his entertainment value, even as they staked out a high ground in the anti-Trump 'resistance'. It will be hard to deny
the plausibility of the charge likely to issue soon from the Sanders campaign, namely that 'the fix is in'; and that, once
more, the people are being denied their proper voice – at first through an organised propaganda campaign that was fed into
debates as well as news coverage, and at last through public co-ordination by the party establishment to guide Democrats into
the one acceptable box.
"... As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate, mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has come. ..."
New Qualifications for Next Debate Likely Rule Out Gabbard
The Democratic National Committee has ratcheted up the threshold to qualify for its next
presidential debate, requiring candidates to have picked up at least 20% of convention
delegates allocated in state primary contests.
As interesting as it might be to have Tulsi there, the time has come for a two-man debate,
mano a mano , between Mr. Neoliberal and Mr. Democratic Socialist. Our time has
come.
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
"They're fearful because Bernie Sanders, his political revolution, morally based, ethically
based, is a fundamental challenge to their interest and their status." -- Dr. Cornel West
"... Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of 500,000 innocent Iraqi children . ..."
"... What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working Americans are not the points of contention in this race. ..."
"... Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in poll after poll . The only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't enough. ..."
"... Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000 children had been killed. ..."
"... Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite. ..."
"... How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children. ..."
"... The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents a hopeful future for the next generation. ..."
"... The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. ..."
"... But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee, Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates. ..."
"... I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump. He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years. ..."
"... Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything" ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then. ..."
"... We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy. ..."
"... 'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root. ..."
"... Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds, thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom reigns ..."
"... Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken. ..."
"... Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it." ..."
"... Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago, with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. ..."
In 2016, Hillary Clinton deserved to lose, and she did. Her deception, her
cheating in
the primary elections , was well-documented, despicable, dishonest, untrustworthy. Her
money-laundering scheme
at DNC should have been prosecuted under campaign finance laws.
Her record of warmongering and gleefully gloating over death and destruction was also well established. On national TV she
bragged about the mutilation of Moammar Qaddafi: "We came, we saw, he died!"
Clinton also lied to the country about "Weapons of Mass Destruction"
in Iraq and voted for that obviously illegal war. This after 8 years of her husband's genocidal sanctions killed a minimum of
500,000 innocent Iraqi children .
This person was undeserving of anyone's support.
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous. Yet, he persisted and to this day attempts to help common
Americans as much as he can. He does what he believes to be the right thing. His integrity and his record of fighting for working
Americans are not the points of contention in this race.
His opponents have instead opted for every nonsensical conspiracy theory and McCarthyite smear they can concoct, including the
most ridiculous of all: the
Putin theory , without a single shred of evidence to support it.
Today, however, Senator Bernie Sanders is the only Democrat who beats Trump in
poll after
poll . The
only one. This is no small matter. Trump needs to be beaten in the tangled Electoral College, where a simple numerical victory isn't
enough.
Bernie wins, and he has the best overall shot of changing the course of history, steering America away from plutocracy and fascism.
That crucial race is happening right now in the primaries . If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders
have already signaled that they will steal the nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election
for the future of America is on Super Tuesday.
It's either Trump or Bernie. That's your choice. Your only choice.
Bernie is the best choice, but it is interesting that you brought up the genocidal sanctions on Iraq. Bernie supported those
sanctions. He also supported the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which reaffirmed US support for the sanctions even after 500,000
children had been killed.
Bernie also voted for Clinton's 1999 bombing campaign on Kosovo.
All that said, yes, Bernie is the best option.
Rhys Jaggar ,
Well, the BBC is bigging up Joe Biden right now, yet another of its ridiculous pieces of propaganda utterly devoid of its duty
to serve its license payors, who are the British people, not the neoconservative banking elite.
When they spout bullshit that 20% of UK workers could miss work 'due to coronavirus', when we have had precisely 36 deaths
in a population of 65 million plus, you know that like climate change, they spout the 1% probability as the mainstream narrative
.
It just shows what folks are up against when media is so cravenly serving those who do not pay them.
Charlotte Russe ,
"If Bernie Sanders doesn't secure 50% of all delegates, then DNC insiders have already signaled that they will steal the
nomination and give it to someone else -- who will lose to Trump. The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
While Bernie spent more than three decades advocating for economic social justice Biden spent those same three decades
promoting social repression."
"The 1990s saw Biden take aim at civil liberties, authoring anti-terror bills that, among other things, "gutted the federal
writ of habeas corpus," as one legal scholar later reflected. It was this earlier legislation that led Biden to brag to anyone
listening that he was effectively the author of the Bush-era PATRIOT ACT, which, in his view, didn't go far enough. He inserted
a provision into the bill that allowed for the militarization of local law enforcement and again suggested deploying the military
within US borders."
How interesting, it's Obama who gave the "cue" for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Beto, Rice, and the entire slippery gang to circle
the wagons in support of the most reactionary warmongering candidate running. The same Obama who released drones every Tuesday
morning killing brown and blacks throughout the Middle East and Africa– the majority of slaughtered were innocent women and children.
The desperation of the national security state is reflected by The DNC's Shenanigans. The security state would rather promote
a crooked, warmongering, lying, racist who barely can put together two logical thoughts then accept a candidate who represents
a hopeful future for the next generation.
The DNC's message is very clear– they're a "private party" and the working-class are NOT invited. In fact, they're
saying more than that–if uninvited workers and the marginalized dare to enter they'll be tossed out on their arse
In plain sight the mainstream media news is telling millions that NO one can stop the military/security/surveillance/corporate
state from their stranglehold over the corrupt political duopoly.
I say fight and don't give-up! Be prepared–organize a million people march and head to Milwaukee– the future of the next generation
is on the line.
But this by far is the most frightening thought, Biden, does not have all his marbles–it's obvious–we can only guess it's
some type of dementia. So if Biden, slides through deploying a multitude of underhanded machinations and becomes the nominee,
Trump, will make mincemeat of him during the debates.
But if Biden, makes it to the Oval Office he'll be "less" than a figurehead. Biden, will be as mentally acute as the early
bird diner in a Florida assisted living facility after a recent stroke. The national security state will seize control– handing
the "taxidermied Biden" a pen to idiotically sign off on their highly insidious agenda ..
Ken Kenn ,
Pretty straightforward for me ( I don't know about Bernie? ) but if the Super delegates and the DNC hierarchy decide to hand the
nomination over to Biden then Bernie should stand as an independent.
At least even in defeat a left marker would be placed on the US political table away from the Corporate owners and the shills
that hack for them in the media and elsewhere. At least ordinary US people would know that someone is on their side.
Corbyn in the UK was described as a ' Marxist' by the Tories and the unquestioning media. Despite all that ' Marxist ' Labour got 33% of the vote. People will vote for a ' socialist '
Charlotte Ruse ,
Unfortunately, Bernie won't abandon the Democratic Party. However, there's a ton of Bernie supporters who will vote Third Party
if Bernie doesn't get the nomination.
paul ,
I'm not in the Orange Baboon's Fan Club, but I find it sad and a little bit pathetic the way people still invest their hopes and
put their faith in figures like Bernie, Tulsi or Jezza. Bernie got shafted in 2016 and just saluted smartly and fell into line behind Crooked Hillary. When she lost, he started singing from the approved hymn sheet. The evil Putin stole the election for Kremlin Agent Trump.
He has been parroting the same nonsense for the past 4 years.
That's when he hasn't been shilling for regime change wars in Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and elsewhere against "communist
dictators."
Bernie will get shafted again shortly and fall into line behind Epstein's and Weinstein's best mate Bloomberg or Creepy Joe,
or Pocahontas, or whoever.
If by some miracle they can't quite rig it this time and Bernie gets the nomination, the DNC will just fail to support him,
and allow Trump to win. They would rather see Trump than Bernie in the White House.
Just like Starmer, Thornberry, Phillips and all the Blairite Backstabber Friends of Israel were more terrified of seeing Jezza
in Number Ten than any Tory.
Dr. Johnson said that getting remarried represented the triumph of hope over experience.
The same applies to people expecting any positive change from people like Bernie, Tulsi, or Jezza.
The system just doesn't allow it.
pete ,
Jeez people get a clue. How many times do you need to fall for the "this candidate is so much better and will solve everything"
ruse? Remember Obama? The exact same bullshit was going around back then.
We have hope😁 . We have change😁 . We have hope and change you can believe in😁 . Well, yeah, we all know what happened during
Obombers 8 years. The entire thing is nothing but Kabuki theatre. For all those still believing the United States is a democracy.
clickkid ,
"The real election for the future of America is on Super Tuesday."
Sorry Joe, but where have you been for the last 50 years" Elections are irrelevant. Events change the world – not elections. The only important aspect of an election is the turnout. If you vote in an election, then at some level you still believe in
the system.
Willem ,
Sometimes Chomsky can be useful
'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. Rather, they must be instilled in the public
mind by more subtle means. A totalitarian state can be satisfied with lesser degrees of allegiance to required truths. It is sufficient
that people obey; what they think is a secondary concern. But in a democratic political order, there is always the danger that
independent thought might be translated into political action, so it is important to eliminate the threat at its root.
Debate cannot be stilled, and indeed, in a properly functioning system of propaganda, it should not be, because it has a system-reinforcing
character if constrained within proper bounds. What is essential is to set the bounds firmly. Controversy may rage as long as
it adheres to the presuppositions that define the consensus of elites, and it should furthermore be encouraged within these bounds,
thus helping to establish these doctrines as the very condition of thinkable thought while reinforcing the belief that freedom
reigns.'
If true, the question is, what are we not allowed to say? Or is Chomsky wrong, and are we allowed to say anything we like since TPTB know that words cannot, ever, change political action
as for that you need power and brutal force, which we do not have and which, btw Chomsky advocates to its readers not to try to
use against the nation state?
So maybe Chomsky is not so useful after all, or only useful for the status quo.
Chomsky's latest book, sold in book stores and at airports, where, apparantly, opinions of dissident writers whose opinions
go beyond the bounds of the consensus of elites, are sold in large amounts to marginalize those opinions out of society, is called
'Optimism over despair', a title stolen from Gramsci who said: 'pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.'
But every time I follow Chomsky's reasoning, I end in dead end roads of which it is quite hard to find your way out. So perhaps
I should change that title into 'nihilism over despair'. If you follow Chomsky's reasoning
clickkid ,
Your Chomsky Quote:
"'In the democratic system, the necessary illusions cannot be imposed by force. .. " Tell that to the Yellow Vests.
ajbsm ,
Despite the deep state stranglehold .on the whole world there seems to be a 'wind' blowing (ref Lenin) of more and more people
turning backs on the secret service candidates – not just in America. Power, money and bullying will carry on succeeding eventually
the edifice is blown away – this will probably happen, it will be ugly and what emerges might not even be better(!) But the current
controllers seem to have a sell by date.
Ken Kenn ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
A revolution can only come about when the Bourgeoisie can no longer continue to govern in the old way. In other words it becomes more than a want – more of a necessity of change to the ordinary person.
We have to remember that in general ( it's a bit of a guess but just to illustrate a point ) that a small majority of people
in any western nation are reasonably content – to an extent. They are not going to rock the boat that Kennedy tried to make the tide rise for or that Thatcher and her mates copied with
home owner ship and the right to get into serious debt. This depends on whether you had/have a boat in the first place. If not you've always been drowning in the slowly rising tide.
Sanders as I've said before is not Castro. He has many faults but in a highly parameterised p Neo liberal economic loving political and media world he is the best hope. Not great stuff on offer but a significant move away from the 1% and the 3% who work for them ( including Presidents and Prime
Misister ) so even that slight shift is plus for the most powerful country on planet earth.
I have in the past worked alongside various religious groups as an atheist as long as they were on the right( or should that
be left?) side on an issue.
Now is not the time for the American left to play the Prolier than though card.
Every opportunity to push back Neo liberalism should be taken.
wardropper ,
I'm not convinced of the theory that the more poor/whipped/ spat upon people become the more likely they are to revolt.
But didn't the Storming of the Bastille happen for that very reason?
I think people are waiting for just one spark to ignite their simmering fury – just one more straw to break the patient camel's
back. Understandably, the "elite" (which used to mean exalted above the general level) are in some trepidation about this, but,
like all bullies their addiction to the rush of power goes all the way to the bitter end – the bitter end being the point at which
their target stands up and gives them a black eye. It's almost comical how the bully then becomes the wailing victim himself,
and we have all seen often enough the successfully-resisted dictatorial figure of authority resorting to the claim that he is
now being bullied himself. But this is a situation of his own making, and our sympathy for him is limited by our memory of that
fact.
Ken Kenn ,
Where's the simmering fury in the West.
U.S. turnout is pathetically low. Even in the UK the turnout in the most important election since the First World War was 67%. I see the result of the " simmering fury " giving rise to the right not the left. Just that one phrase or paragraph of provocative words will spark the revolution?
... ... ...
wardropper ,
My point, which I thought I made clearly enough, was that the fury is simmering , and waiting for a catalyst. I also think
an important reason for turnout being low is simply that people don't respond well to being treated like idiots by an utterly
corrupt establishment. They just don't want to participate in the farce.
Once again, Mark Twain sums up my feeling: "If voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it."
I'm not trying to be argumentative, and, like you, I am quite happy to back Sanders as by far the best of a pretty rotten bunch.
Perhaps China is indeed leading in many respects right now, but becoming Chinese doesn't seem like a real option for most of us
at the moment . . . Incidentally I have been to China and I found the people there as interesting as people anywhere else, although
I particularly enjoyed the many things which are completely different from our western cultural roots.
Rhisiart Gwilym ,
Speaking of the Clintons' death toll, didn't Sanders too back all USAmerica's mass-murdering, armed-robbery aggressions against
helpless small countries in recent times? And anyway, why are we wasting time discussing the minutiae of the shadow-boxing in
this ridiculous circus of a pretend-democratic 'election'? Watching a coffin warp would be a more useful occupation.
I go with Dmitry Orlov's reckoning of the matter: It doesn't matter who becomes president of the US, since the rule of the
deep state continues unbroken, enacting its own policies, which ignore the wishes of the common citizens, and only follow the
requirements of the mostly hyper-rich gics (gangsters-in-charge) in the controlling positions of this spavined, failing empire.
(My paraphrase of Dmitry.)
USPresidents do what their deep-state handlers want; or they get impeached, or assassinated like the Kennedy brothers. And
they all know this. Bill Hick's famous joke about men in a smoke-filled room showing the newly-'elected' POTUS that piece of film
of Kennedy driving by the grassy knoll in Dealy Plaza, Dallas, is almost literally true. All POTUSes understand that perfectly
well before they even take office.
Voting for the policies you prefer, in a genuinely democratic republic, and actually getting them realised, will only happen
for USAmericans when they've risen up and taken genuine popular control of their state-machine; at last!
Meanwhile, of what interest is this ridiculous charade to us in Britain (on another continent entirely; we never see this degree
of attention given to Russian politics, though it has a much greater bearing on our future)? Our business here is to get Britain
out of it's current shameful status, as one of the most grovelling of all the Anglozionist empire's provinces. We have a traitorous-comprador
class of our own to turn out of power. Waste no time on the continuous three-ring distraction-circus in the US – where we in Britain
don't even have a vote.
wardropper ,
The upvotes here would seem to show what thinking people appreciate most.
Seeing through the advertising bezazz, the cheerleaders and the ownership of the media is obviously a top priority, and I suspect
a large percentage of people who don't even know about the OffG would agree.
John Ervin ,
Where's yours? That's impertinent. Our voting process was programmed, close to 100% by two guys, at one point not many years ago,
with the same last name, the brothers Urosevich. The machine owners claim that, as it is their proprietary software, the public is excluded from the vote-counting. And that
much still holds true. Game. Set. Match. Any questions?
Antonym ,
What Bernie Sanders suffered and endured in 2016 was outrageous.
US deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016: they would love him to become string puppet POTUS in 2020. Trump is more difficult to control so they hate him.
John Ervin ,
Just one more Conspiracy Realist, eh! When will we ever learn?
"The deep state ate him for breakfast in 2016 ." That gives some sense of the ease with which they pull strings, nicely put.
One variation on the theme of your metaphor: "They savored him as one might consume a cocktail olive at an exclusive or entitled
soirée."
It is painfully clear by any real connection of dots that he is simply one of their stalking horses for other game. And that Homeland game (still) doesn't know whether a horse has four, or six, legs.
*****
"Puppet Masters, or master puppets?"
Antonym ,
It is painfully clear that US Deep state hates Trump simply by looking at the Russiagate they cooked him up.
Fair dinkum ,
The US voters have surrounded themselves with a sewer, now they have to swim in it.
However, we do need to raise questions about election anomalies. Journalists should be
focused on the DNC is cheating Bernie and, by extension, the American people. It must be
recorded. It should be investigated. The first 4 primary contests account for only 4% of all
allocated delegates, yet have a hugely disproportionate influence on the race. Of those 4 states,
only NV is roughly in synch with the national demographic profile.
The whole primary system needs a major overhaul. It takes too long and costs too much (e.g.,
all the wasted $$ Steyer and Tulsi spent in SC). It's an embarrassing wasteful spectacle which
only enriches the MSM and hired political consultant hacks. Most voters don't bother to tune in
until 10-12 months into the marathon campaign. I would blow it all up and start over from
scratch.
I think everybody should listen the initial 47 minutes
Notable quotes:
"... Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity making the facade not so subtle. ..."
"... Literally the only endorsement I've heard of Tulsi Gabbard - and a strikingly convincing one ..."
"... Isn't it just a question of the profits in the military business? ..."
In the United States and other democracies, political and economic systems still work in
theory, but not in practice. Meanwhile, the American-led takedown of the post-World War II
international system has shattered long-standing rules and norms of behavior. The combination
of disorder at home and abroad is spawning changes that are increasingly disadvantageous to the
United States. With Congress having essentially walked off the job, there is a need for
America's universities to provide the information and analysis of international best practices
that the political system does not.
Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr. is a senior fellow at Brown University's Watson Institute
for International and Public Affairs, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense, ambassador
to Saudi Arabia (during operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm), acting Assistant Secretary
of State for African Affairs, and Chargé d'affaires at both Bangkok and Beijing. He
began his diplomatic career in India but specialized in Chinese affairs. (He was the principal
American interpreter during President Nixon's visit to Beijing in 1972.)
Ambassador Freeman is a much sought-after public speaker (see
http://chasfreeman.net ) and the author of several well-received books on statecraft and
diplomacy. His most recent book, America's Continuing Misadventures in the Middle East was
published in May 2016. Interesting Times: China, America, and the Shifting Balance of Prestige,
appeared in March 2013. America's Misadventures in the Middle East came out in 2010, as did the
most recent revision of The Diplomat's Dictionary, the companion volume to Arts of Power:
Statecraft and Diplomacy. He was the editor of the Encyclopedia Britannica entry on
"diplomacy."
Chas Freeman studied at the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and in
Taiwan, and earned an AB magna cum laude from Yale University as well as a JD from the Harvard
Law School. He chairs Projects International, Inc., a Washington-based firm that for more than
three decades has helped its American and foreign clients create ventures across borders,
facilitating their establishment of new businesses through the design, negotiation,
capitalization, and implementation of greenfield investments, mergers and acquisitions, joint
ventures, franchises, one-off transactions, sales and agencies in other countries.
Well worth the watch and hope more see it, especially the presentation in the initial 47
minutes. We Americans take our deficits and the $ as the reserve currency far too
lightly.
Wanted to add that the malaise that is gripping the U.S. institutions is completely
visible, it is not the opaque and obsequies portrait drawn by the punditry, news
organizations, and elites. Seems most obvious to those of us outside the beltway that can
clearly delineate between the failure of DC and the projections and marketing to the
population that passes as wonky prose. Stupidity lacks the clarity, but brings the temerity
making the facade not so subtle.
No, not mercenaries, this is a protection racket. The U.N. address in late 2018 by the
President (the laughter spoke volumes) was about as insightful as a "goodfellas" scene where
the shakedown of the little guy is highlighted. It was the speeches by other countries at the
meeting that was most informative.
A definitive pullback from U.S. hegemony was palpable, real, and un-moderated. Large and
small countries all expressed an unwillingness to be held under the thumb of the global
bully. This is the result of having an over abundance of a particle within D.C.; not the
electron, photon, or neutron...but the moron.
"... With Neoliberal Democrats like with Trotskyites , the only reality is power. For everything else, in any conflict between reality and fantasy, fantasy wins every damn time. ..."
in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean
the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent.
as if it really mattered. Neoliberal Democrats policies are built on manufactured memes,
anecdotal narratives, hyperbolic delusions, ephemeral boogeymen, sweeping generalizations,
logical fallacies, and bloated definitions. In other words it's lies, lies, lies, lies, lies,
all the way up and down the chain.
With Neoliberal Democrats like with Trotskyites , the only reality is power. For
everything else, in any conflict between reality and fantasy, fantasy wins every damn
time.
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation contracts). ..."
"... I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution – by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within a single party. It must split. ..."
"... A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican program on behalf of the One Percent. ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a
brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the
One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has
assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question:
Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor
Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC
on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope
or Change." That is, no change from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC. The way Rome's
constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their way through a
series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected to the position
of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's neoliberal fiscal
policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative bureaucracy, so all
such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was a way of keeping
decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius Caesar and others
borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging games that would
demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their financial liability to
their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing private enabled the leading
oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates. That was Rome's version of
Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean
the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system
would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with
Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times have been busy
spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot, "Bloomberg needs
to take down Sanders, immediately." Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN warned, the race
suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election returns. That
means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will have a chance to
deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem
Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen with a renewed DNC theft of
the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's not called theft when it's
legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the courts ruled that the Democrat
Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the voters. When it comes to party
machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the superdelegates in their
proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
"... This is the PLAN for all WHITE anglo saxon deplorables goyim Illiterate, Unemployed, violent and give them all the (tax subsidized) drugs opiods, pornography, that their subhuman hallow souls desired white genocide/ ..."
"... There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being deeply disappointed. ..."
Ironically the DEM party has become the Oligarchs party the DEMs debased themselves
abandoning the WORKING class long time ago. The DEM recipe for WHITE conservative deplorables
is something like DETROIT model a former city the cradle of the Auto/industrial manufacturing
is now a desolated city bankrupt, violence, dilapidated etc.
This is the PLAN for all WHITE anglo saxon deplorables goyim Illiterate, Unemployed,
violent and give them all the (tax subsidized) drugs opiods, pornography, that their subhuman
hallow souls desired white genocide/
There is no quandary. The US democracy has long become "one dollar – one vote". Those
who still believe that Dems represent working people should not take IQ test to avoid being
deeply disappointed.
"... By Michael Hudson, a research professor of Economics at University of Missouri, Kansas City, and a research associate at the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. His latest book is "and forgive them their debts": Lending, Foreclosure and Redemption from Bronze Age Finance to the Jubilee Year ..."
"... Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class, the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will the Donor Class trump the voting class? ..."
"... This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the One Percent. ..."
"... But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC. ..."
"... Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... History of Rome ..."
"... Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again. ..."
"... So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another day. ..."
"... Trump may or may not win. But if he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton. ..."
"... And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops Richie Rich gets uneasy. ..."
"... I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom Perez. ..."
"... I find myself wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings? ..."
To hear the candidates debate, you would think that their fight was over who could best beat
Trump. But when Trump's billionaire twin Mike Bloomberg throws a quarter-billion dollars into
an ad campaign to bypass the candidates actually running for votes in Iowa, New Hampshire and
Nevada, it's obvious that what really is at issue is the future of the Democrat Party.
Bloomberg is banking on a brokered convention held by the Democratic National Committee (DNC)
in which money votes. (If "corporations are people," so is money in today's political
world.)
Until Nevada, all the presidential candidates except for Bernie Sanders were playing for
a brokered convention. The party's candidates seemed likely to be chosen by the Donor Class,
the One Percent and its proxies, not the voting class (the 99 Percent). If, as Mayor Bloomberg
has assumed, the DNC will sell the presidency to the highest bidder, this poses the great
question: Can the myth that the Democrats represent the working/middle class survive? Or, will
the Donor Class trump the voting class?
This could be thought of as "election interference" – not from Russia but from the
DNC on behalf of its Donor Class. That scenario would make the Democrats' slogan for 2020 "No
Hope or Change." That is, no from today's economic trends that are sweeping wealth up to the
One Percent.
All this sounds like Rome at the end of the Republic in the 1st century BC.
The way Rome's constitution was set up, candidates for the position of consul had to pay their
way through a series of offices. The process started by going deeply into debt to get elected
to the position of aedile, in charge of staging public games and entertainments. Rome's
neoliberal fiscal policy did not tax or spend, and there was little public administrative
bureaucracy, so all such spending had to be made out of the pockets of the oligarchy. That was
a way of keeping decisions about how to spend out of the hands of democratic politics. Julius
Caesar and others borrowed from the richest Bloomberg of their day, Crassus, to pay for staging
games that would demonstrate their public spirit to voters (and also demonstrate their
financial liability to their backers among Rome's One Percent). Keeping election financing
private enabled the leading oligarchs to select who would be able to run as viable candidates.
That was Rome's version of Citizens United.
But in the wake of Sanders' landslide victory in Nevada, a brokered convention
would mean the end of the Democrat Party pretense to represent the 99 Percent. The American
voting system would be seen to be as oligarchic as that of Rome on the eve of the infighting
that ended with Augustus becoming Emperor in 27 BC.
Today's pro-One Percent media – CNN, MSNBC and The New York Times
have been busy spreading their venom against Sanders. On Sunday, February 23, CNN ran a slot,
"Bloomberg needs to take down Sanders, immediately."[1]Given Sanders' heavy national lead, CNN
warned, the race suddenly is almost beyond the vote-fixers' ability to fiddle with the election
returns. That means that challengers to Sanders should focus their attack on him; they will
have a chance to deal with Bloomberg later (by which CNN means, when it is too late to stop
him).
The party's Clinton-Obama recipients of Donor Class largesse pretend to believe that Sanders
is not electable against Donald Trump. This tactic seeks to attack him at his strongest point.
Recent polls show that he is the only candidate who actually would defeat Trump – as they
showed that he would have done in 2016.
The DNC knew that, but preferred to lose to Trump than to win with Bernie. Will history
repeat itself? Or to put it another way, will this year's July convention become a replay of
Chicago in 1968?
A quandary, not a problem . Last year I was asked to write a scenario for what might happen
with a renewed DNC theft of the election's nomination process. To be technical, I realize, it's
not called theft when it's legal. In the aftermath of suits over the 2016 power grab, the
courts ruled that the Democrat Party is indeed controlled by the DNC members, not by the
voters. When it comes to party machinations and decision-making, voters are subsidiary to the
superdelegates in their proverbial smoke-filled room (now replaced by dollar-filled foundation
contracts).
I could not come up with a solution that does not involve dismantling and restructuring the
existing party system. We have passed beyond the point of having a solvable "problem" with the
Democratic National Committee (DNC). That is what a quandary is. A problem has a solution
– by definition. A quandary does not have a solution. There is no way out. The conflict
of interest between the Donor Class and the Voting Class has become too large to contain within
a single party. It must split.
A second-ballot super-delegate scenario would mean that we are once again in for a second
Trump term. That option was supported by five of the six presidential contenders on stage in
Nevada on Wednesday, February 20. When Chuck Todd asked whether Michael Bloomberg, Elizabeth
Warren, Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar would support the candidate who received
the most votes in the primaries (now obviously Bernie Sanders), or throw the nomination to the
super-delegates held over from the Obama-Clinton neoliberals (75 of whom already are said to
have pledged their support to Bloomberg), each advocated "letting the process play out." That
was a euphemism for leaving the choice to the Tony-Blair style leadership that have made the
Democrats the servants' entrance to the Republican Party. Like the British Labour Party behind
Blair and Gordon Brown, its role is to block any left-wing alternative to the Republican
program on behalf of the One Percent.
This problem would not exist if the United States had a European-style parliamentary system
that would enable a third party to obtain space on the ballots in all 50 states. If this were
Europe, the new party of Bernie Sanders, AOC et al. would exceed 50 percent of the
votes, leaving the Wall Street democrats with about the same 8 percent share that similar
neoliberal democratic parties have in Europe ( e.g ., Germany's hapless neoliberalized
Social Democrats), that is, Klobocop territory as voters moved to the left. The "voting
Democrats," the 99 Percent, would win a majority leaving the Old Neoliberal Democrats in the
dust.
The DNC's role is to prevent any such challenge. The United States has an effective
political duopoly, as both parties have created such burdensome third-party access to the
ballot box in state after state that Bernie Sanders decided long ago that he had little
alternative but to run as a Democrat.
The problem is that the Democrat Party does not seem to be reformable. That means that
voters still may simply abandon it – but that will simply re-elect the Democrats' de
facto 2020 candidate, Donald Trump. The only hope would be to shrink the party into a shell,
enabling the old guard to go way so that the party could be rebuilt from the ground up.
But the two parties have created a legal duopoly reinforced with so many technical barriers
that a repeat of Ross Perot's third party (not to mention the old Socialist Party, or the Whigs
in 1854) would take more than one election cycle to put in place. For the time being, we may
expect another few months of dirty political tricks to rival those of 2016 as Obama appointee
Tom Perez is simply the most recent version of Florida fixer Debbie Schultz-Wasserman (who gave
a new meaning to the Wasserman Test).
So we are in for another four years of Donald Trump. But by 2024, how tightly will the U.S.
economy find itself tied in knots?
The Democrats' Vocabulary of Deception
How I would explain Bernie's program. Every economy is a mixed economy. But to hear Michael
Bloomberg and his fellow rivals to Bernie Sanders explain the coming presidential election, one
would think that an economy must be either capitalist or, as Bloomberg put it, Communist. There
is no middle ground, no recognition that capitalist economies have a government sector, which
typically is called the "socialist" sector – Social Security, Medicare, public schooling,
roads, anti-monopoly regulation, and public infrastructure as an alternative to privatized
monopolies extracting economic rent.
What Mr. Bloomberg means by insisting that it's either capitalism or communism is an absence
of government social spending and regulation. In practice this means oligarchic financial
control, because every economy is planned by some sector. The key is, who will do the planning?
If government refrains from taking the lead in shaping markets, then Wall Street takes over
– or the City in London, Frankfurt in Germany, and the Bourse in France.
Most of all, the aim of the One Percent is to distract attention from the fact that the
economy is polarizing – and is doing so at an accelerating rate. National income
statistics are rigged to show that "the economy" is expanding. The pretense is that everyone is
getting richer and living better, not more strapped. But the reality is that all the growth in
GDP has accrued to the wealthiest 5 Percent since the Obama Recession began in 2008. Obama
bailed out the banks instead of the 10 million victimized junk-mortgage holders. The 95
Percent's share of GDP has shrunk.
The GDP statistics do not show is that "capital gains" – the market price of stocks,
bonds and real estate owned mainly by the One to Five Percent – has soared, thanks to
Obama's $4.6 trillion Quantitative Easing pumped into the financial markets instead of into the
"real" economy in which wage-earners produce goods and services.
How does one "stay the course" in an economy that is polarizing? Staying the course means
continuing the existing trends that are concentrating more and more wealth in the hands of the
One Percent, that is, the Donor Class – while loading down the 99 Percent with more debt,
paid to the One Percent (euphemized as the economy's "savers"). All "saving" is at the top of
the pyramid. The 99 Percent can't afford to save much after paying their monthly "nut" to the
One Percent.
If this economic polarization is impoverishing most of the population while sucking wealth
and income and political power up to the One Percent, then to be a centrist is to be the
candidate of oligarchy. It means not challenging the economy's structure.
Language is being crafted to confuse voters into imagining that their interest is the same
as that of the Donor Class of rentiers , creditors and financialized corporate
businesses and rent-extracting monopolies. The aim is to divert attention from voters' their
own economic interest as wage-earners, debtors and consumers. It is to confuse voters not to
recognize that without structural reform, today's "business as usual" leaves the One Percent in
control.
So to call oneself a "centrist" is simply a euphemism for acting as a lobbyist for siphoning
up income and wealth to the One Percent. In an economy that is polarizing, the choice is either
to favor them instead of the 99 Percent.
That certainly is not the same thing as stability. Centrism sustains the polarizing dynamic
of financialization, private equity, and the Biden-sponsored bankruptcy "reform" written by his
backers of the credit-card companies and other financial entities incorporated in his state of
Delaware. He was the senator for the that state's Credit Card industry, much as former
Democratic VP candidate Joe Lieberman was the senator from Connecticut's Insurance
Industry.
A related centrist demand is that of Buttigieg's and Biden's aim to balance the federal
budget. This turns out to be a euphemism for cutting back Social Security, Medicare and relate
social spending ("socialism") to pay for America's increasing militarization, subsidies and tax
cuts for the One Percent. Sanders rightly calls this "socialism for the rich." The usual word
for this is oligarchy . That seems to be a missing word in today's mainstream
vocabulary.
The alternative to democracy is oligarchy. As Aristotle noted already in the 4 th
Confusion over the word "socialism" may be cleared up by recognizing that every economy
is mixed, and every economy is planned – by someone. If not the government in the public
interest, then by Wall Street and other financial centers in their interest. They
fought against an expanding government sector in every economy today, calling it socialism
– without acknowledging that the alternative, as Rosa Luxemburg put it, is
barbarism.
I think that Sanders is using the red-letter word "socialism" and calling himself a
"democratic socialist" to throw down the ideological gauntlet and plug himself into the long
and powerful tradition of socialist politics. Paul Krugman would like him to call himself a
social democrat. But the European parties of this name have discredited this label as being
centrist and neoliberal. Sanders wants to emphasize that a quantum leap, a phase change is in
order.
If he can be criticized for waving a needlessly red flag, it is his repeated statement
that his program is designed for the "working class." What he means are wage-earners and this
includes the middle class. Even those who make over $100,000 a year are still wage earners, and
typically are being squeezed by a predatory financial sector, a predatory medical insurance
sector, drug companies and other monopolies.
The danger in this terminology is that most workers like to think of themselves as
middle class, because that is what they would like to rise into. That is especially he case for
workers who own their own home (even if mortgage represents most of the value, so that most of
the home's rental value is paid to banks, not to themselves as part of the "landlord class"),
and have an education (even if most of their added income is paid out as student debt service),
and their own car to get to work (involving automobile debt).
The fact is that even $100,000 executives have difficulty living within the limits of
their paycheck, after paying their monthly nut of home mortgage or rent, medical care, student
loan debt, credit-card debt and automobile debt, not to mention 15% FICA paycheck withholding
and state and local tax withholding.
Of course, Sanders' terminology is much more readily accepted by wage-earners as the
voters whom Hillary called "Deplorables" and Obama called "the mob with pitchforks," from whom
he was protecting his Wall Street donors whom he invited to the White House in 2009. But I
think there is a much more appropriate term: the 99 Percent, made popular by Occupy Wall
Street. That is Bernie's natural constituency. It serves to throw down the gauntlet between
democracy and oligarchy, and between socialism and barbarism, by juxtaposing the 99 Percent to
the One Percent.
The Democratic presidential debate on February 25 will set the stage for Super
Tuesday's "beauty contest" to gauge what voters want. The degree of Sanders' win will help
determine whether the byzantine Democrat party apparatus that actually will be able to decide
on the Party's candidate. The expected strong Sanders win is will make the choice stark: either
to accept who the voters choose – namely, Bernie Sanders – or to pick a candidate
whom voters already have rejected, and is certain to lose to Donald Trump in
November.
If that occurs, the Democrat Party will evaporate as its old Clinton-Obama guard is no
longer able to protect its donor class on Wall Street and corporate America. Too many Sanders
voters would stay home or vote for the Greens. That would enable the Republicans to maintain
control of the Senate and perhaps even grab back the House of Representatives.
But it would be dangerous to assume that the DNC will be reasonable. Once again, Roman
history provides a "business as usual" scenario. The liberal German politician Theodor Mommsen
published his History of Rome in 1854-56, warning against letting an aristocracy block
reform by controlling the upper house of government (Rome's Senate, or Britain House of Lords).
The leading families who overthrew the last king in 509 BC created a Senate chronically prone
to being stifled by its leaders' "narrowness of mind and short-sightedness that are the proper
and inalienable privileges of all genuine patricianism."[2]
These qualities also are the distinguishing features of the DNC. Sanders had better win
big!
I wonder how much of the rot at the top of the Dem party is simple dementia. By
the age of 70, half of people have some level of dementia. Consider Joe Biden – is
anyone in the public sphere going to state the obvious – that he has dementia and as
such is unfit for office?
First, my priors. I voted for Sanders in 2016, will vote for him in 2020, and
expect him to be elected president. Further I believe that where we find ourselves today is
the result of at least 40 years of intentional bi-partisan policies. Both parties are
responsible.
If Sanders, upon being elected, were able to snap his fingers and call into
existence his entire program, it would immediately face a bi-partisan opposition that would
be funded by billions of dollars, which would be willing to take as long as necessary, even
decades, to roll it back.
Just electing Sanders is only the first step. There must be a committed,
determined follow through that must be willing to last decades as well for his program to
stick. And there will be defeats along the way.
Several observations. If Hillary had beaten Trump, Sanders would have trudged
back to Vermont and would never have been heard from again. The MSM would have dismissed his
program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class. But she didn't, so here we are,
which is fantastic.
Some on Resistance Twitter claim that if Sanders is the nominee, Trump will
win a 48 sweep. Possible, but very unlikely. But if it did happen, the MSM would once again
dismiss his program as being completely unacceptable to the voting class, and Sanders would
trudge back to Vermont never to be heard from again.
So if his program requires a decade long follow through, what are the least
bad outcomes? If the D's deprive him of the nomination at the convention, even though he has
far and away more pledged delegates, the MSM cannot dismiss his program as it would in the
two previous scenarios, and his program would live to fight another
day.
If he loses to Trump, but closely, which can mean a lot of different things,
his program would live to fight another day. Moreover, if the D's are seen to actively
collude with Trump, this less bad outcome would be even better.
I am an old geezer and don't expect to live long enough to see how all of this
plays out. But I am very optimistic about his program's long term prospects. There is only
one bad outcome, a Trump 48 state sweep, which I consider very unlikely. But most
importantly, the best outcome, his election, and the two least bad outcomes, the D's stealing
the nomination from him or his losing a close general election, all still will require a
decades long commitment to make his program permanent.
Where do people get this? Take a deep breath. Trump may or may not win. But if
he does, the best he can hope for is a skin-of-his-teeth victory. Seriously, he lost the
popular vote by a ton to Hillary freaking Clinton.
And stuff is beginning to crumble around him on the Right. The Dow drops. Oops
Richie Rich gets uneasy.
Hammered by a 5 star general. The Deplorables kids were raised to look up to
generals, not New Yawk dandys. How does this affect them? And it's still
February.
Just an FYI: The five-volume Mommsen "History of Rome" referenced in the text
is available in English on Project Gutenberg, free and legal to download. Probably everyone
here knows this, but just in case
How about Bernie call himself "Roosevelt Democrat" instead of "Democratic
Socialist". It would give all those in the senior demographic a better understanding of what
Sander's policies mean to them as opposed to the scary prospect of the "Socialist"
label.
The Democrats should have been slowly disarming the word "socialist" for at
least the last decade. In principle, it's not difficult – as Michael Hudson says
– "Every economy is a mixed economy" – and in a very real sense everyone's a
socialist (even if only unconsciously). I'm not saying that bit of rhetorical jujitsu would
magically turn conservative voters progressive but you'll never get to the point where you
can defend socialist programs on the merits if you always dodge that fight. It's just a shame
that Bernie Sanders has to do it all in a single election cycle and I don't think choosing a
different label now would help him much.
He could even compare himself to the earlier Roosevelt: Teddy
Roosevelt.
By 1900 the old bourbon Dem party was deeply split between its old, big
business and banking wing – the bourbons – and the rising progressive/populist
wing. It was GOP pres Roosevelt who first pushed through progressive programs like breaking
up railroad and commodity monopolies, investigating and regulating meat packing and
fraudulent patent medicines, etc. Imagine that.
I just finished Stoller's book Goliath and according to him, Teddy
wasn't quite as progressive as we are often led to believe. He wasn't so much opposed to
those with enormous wealth – he just wanted them to answer to him. He did do the things
you mentioned, but after sending the message to the oligarchs, he then became friendly with
them once he felt he'd brought them to heel. He developed quite the soft spot for JP Morgan,
according to Stoller.
TR wanted to be the Boss, the center of attention with everyone looking up to
him. As one of his relatives said, he wanted to be the baby at every christening and the
corpse at every funeral.
I have a sense that changing his party affiliation label at any point in time
since Sanders began running for president in 2016 would be a godsend to his enemies in both
hands of the Duopoly. They'd tar him loudly as a hypocrite without an ounce of integrity,
using personal politics to distract from the issues.
Meanwhile, we can expect to see the Socialist (and Communist, and
Russia-Russia-Russia) nonsense reiterated as long as Sanders has strong visibility. He's
extremely dangerous to both parties and their owners. I don't' believe the DNC will let him
take the convention, but if he does, I'll bet the Dems give him minimal support and hope he
fails–better the devil you know, etc.
It's time to put your money in reality futures by putting all that you can into
supporting Bernie, AOC, etc. and all your local candidates that support at least democratic
socialism and ourrevolution the DSA Justice Dems or other groups that have people but need
money. I was having a conversation with a friend who was complaining that he was getting too
many emails from Bernie asking for money after he had given the campaign a "modest amount".
My suggestion was in honor of his children and grandchildren he should instead GIVE 'TIL IT
FEELS GOOD. My spouse and I, I told him, gave the max to Bernie and now we don't give upset
when he asks for more. There will likely never be a moment like this in history and there may
not be much of a history if things go the wrong way now. He agreed.
Exactly right. I gave Bernie the max in 2019 and will keep giving throughout
2020. This campaign is about not just me, but all of us. It's now. We must fight for this
change as has always been the historical precedent.
I was more than a little honked when Sanders appeared to roll over and
support HRC in 2016 in spite of the obvious fraud perpetrated on him and his supporters, not
to mention the subsequent treatment they received at the hands of the DNC and Tom
Perez.
I am coming to understand that might have been necessary within the context of
one last desperate attempt to work with the Democratic party. But now I find myself
wondering if it wouldn't be a good idea for Sanders and his supporters to make it absolutely
clear their attempts to work within 'the system' are finished if they are robbed again; maybe
even starting work immediately on establishing a party not controlled by Wall Street
lickspittle or knuckle-dragging no-nothings?
Little as it has been the answer has a lot to do with my willingness to pour
more money into repetitively self-defeating behavior.
I am a somewhat old geezer, too, who caucused for Bernie in 2016 and 2020. This
article is very good and helps me understand why I feel the way I do. I was disappointed in
Obama, who didn't follow through on the things I cared about, and I was devastated when
Clinton was crowned the Democratic nominee well before the Convention, all the while holding
onto a smidgen of hope that somehow Bernie would pull through as the
nominee.
I was ecstatic when Bernie announced his candidacy for 2020. He is our only
hope, and now we have a second chance. But now I am spending half my time screaming at people
on tv and online who can't even hear me, and even if they could, they don't give a s–t
what I think. It's Clinton 2.0–same thing all over again, four years later. Just who do
these people (DNC, MSM, and others with a voice) think they are, to decide for the Democratic
voters which candidate will be the nominee, who won't be the nominee, without regard to what
the voters want? They are a bunch of pompous as–s who have some other motive that I am
not savvy enough to understand. Is it about money in their pockets or what?
It should be as simple as this–Bernie is leading in the polls, if they
are to be believed, and good people of all demographics want him to be our next President. He
is a serious contender for the nomination. Show the man some much-earned respect and put
people on MSM and publish articles by writers who help us understand what the anti-Bernie
panic is about and why we shouldn't panic. Help us to explain his plans if he hasn't
explained it thoroughly enough instead of calling him crazy. But to dismiss him as if he has
the plague is not furthering the truth, and it is a serious injustice to the voting public.
Naked Capitalism can't do it alone.
There is a lot of good analysis out there, mainly on Youtube. I particularly
like The Hill's Rising. A young progressive Democrat and a young progressive Republican (who
even knew there was such a thing!) 'splain a lot of the antipathy. Another good source is
Nomiki Konst, who is working on reforming the Dem party from within. Here she talks to RJ
Eskow about how the DNC is structured and how she hopes to provide tools for rank-and-file
Dems to wrest the levers of power from the establishment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ7wm6DCPV4
Private sector cannot operate without same. Harrold
The problem is that the population, including FDR in his time, have been duped
into believing that the private sector REQUIRES government privileges for private depository
institutions, aka "the banks."
So currently we have no truly private sector to speak of but businesses and
industry using the public's credit but for private gain.
Last night's Democracy Now was interesting. Amy seems to be less of a commie
hater than she recently was with her participation in the Russia-Russia-Russia smears against
Trump. She held court last night with Paul Krugman and Richard Wolff discussing just exactly
what "socialism" means. It was a great performance.
Krug seemed a little shellshocked about the whole discussion and he said we
shouldn't even use the term "socialism" at all because all the things Bernie wants are just
as capitalist – that capitalism encompasses socialism. But he stuttered when he
discussed "single-payer" which he claimed he supported – his single payer is like Pete
Buttigieg's single-payer-eventually. He tried to change the subject and Amy brought him
straight back.
Then Wolff, who was in excellent form, informed the table that "socialism" is a
moveable feast because it can be and has been many things for the advancement of societies,
etc. But the term always means the advancement of society. Then Krug dropped a real bomb
– he actually said (this is almost a quote) that recently he had been informed by
Powell that debt isn't really all that important.
Really, Krug said that. And he tried to exetend that thought to the argument
that anybody can provide social benefits – it doesn't require a self-proclaimed
"socialist".
Richard Wolff confronted that slide with pointing out that it hasn't happened
yet – and he left Krug with no excuses. It was quite the showdown. Nice Richard Wolff
is so firmly in Bernie's camp.
Krug looked evasive – and I kept wishing they had invited Steve Keen to
participate.
In the language of the American Oligarchy and it's tame and owned presstitutes on the MSM,
any country targeted for destabilisation, destruction and rape – either because it
doesn't do what America tells it do (Russia), because it has rich natural resources or has a
'socialist' state (Venezuela) or because lunatic neo-cons and even more lunatic Christian
Evangelicals (hoping to provoke The End Times ) want it to happen (Syria and Iran) – is
first labelled as a 'regime'.
That's because the word 'regime' is associated with dictatorships and human rights abuses
and establishing a non-compliant country as a 'regime' is the US government's and MSM's first
step at manufacturing public consent for that country's destruction.
Unfortunately if you sit back and talk a cool-headed, factual look at actions and attitudes
that we're told constitute a regime then you have to conclude that America itself is 'a
regime'.
So, here's why America is a regime:
Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of blowing up wedding parties
with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where
else.
Regimes carry out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than
Qasem Soleimani.
Regimes use their economic power to bully and impose their will – sanctioning
countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death
of 500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?).
Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty, for
example.
Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian
Assange.
Regimes imprison people. America is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million
people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's population), that's 25% of
the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many
prisoners? Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely
profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following
journalists and organisations kicked off numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots
of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say but I will
fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic
Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil, rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped
together by using another favourite presstitute term – 'axis of evil'. America has its
own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women
hating, head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide
(assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist, genocidal undeclared nuclear power
state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about ooh let's think. Last year's
treatment of child refugees from Latin America, the execution of African Americans for
'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the millions of
dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police
force under 'civil forfeiture' laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations
getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent, effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm .just like America financed terrorists to help destroy
Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion dollars to install another regime – the one of
anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine
Yup – America passes the 'sniff test' for Regime status.
If you're sick of being ruled by lying, psychopathic wankers then imagine a world,
much like this one but subtly different where, instead of always getting away with it all
the time, our psychopathic rulers occasionally got what they really, really deserved.
4
hours ago
America's Military is Killing – Americans!
In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from the budget
for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them).
Fats forward to 21 December 2019 and Donald Trump signed off on a US defense budget of a
mind boggling $738 billion dollars.
To put that in context -- the annual US government Education budget is
sround $68 billion dollars.
Did you get that -- $738 billion on defense, $68 billion on education?
That means the government spends more than ten times on preparations to kill people than
it does on preparing children for life in the adult world.
Wow!
How ******* psychotic and death-affirming is that? It gets even worse when you consider
that that $716 billion dollars is only the headline figure – it doesn't include
whatever the Deep State siphons away into black-ops and kick backs. And .America's military
isn't even very good – it's hasn't 'won' a conflict since the second world war, it's
proud (and horrifically expensive) aircraft carriers have been rendered obsolete by Chinese
and Russian hypersonic missiles and its 'cutting edge' weapons are so good (not) that
everyone wants to buy the cheaper and better Russian versions: classic example – the
F-35 jet program will screw $1.5 TRILLION (yes, TRILLION) dollars out of US taxpayers but
but it's a piece of **** plane that doesn't work properly which the Russians laughingly
refer to as 'a flying piano'.
In contrast to America's free money for the military industrial complex defense budget,
China spends $165 billion and Russia spends $61 billion on defense and I don't see anyone
attacking them (well, except America, that is be it only by proxy for now).
Or, put things another way. The United Kingdom spent £110 billion on it's National
Health Service in 2017. That means, if you get sick in England, you can see a doctor for
free. If you need drugs you pay a prescription charge of around $11.50(nothing, if
unemployed, a child or elderly), whatever the market price of the drugs. If you need to see
a consultant or medical specialist, you'll see one for free. If you need an operation,
you'll get one for free. If you need on-going care for a chronic illness, you'll get it for
free.
Fully socialised, free at the point of access, healthcare for all. How good is that?
US citizens could have that, too.
Allowing for the US's larger population, the UK National Health Service transplanted to
America could cost about $650 billion a year. That would still leave $66 billion dollars
left over from the proposed defense budget of $716 billion to finance weapons of death and
destruction -- more than those 'evil Ruskies' spend.
The US has now been at war, somewhere in the world (i.e in someone elses' country where
the US doesn't have any business being) continuously for 28 years. Those 28 years have
coincided with (for the 'ordinary people', anyway) declining living standards, declining
real wages, increased police violence, more repression and surveillance, declining
lifespans, declining educational and health outcomes, more every day misery in other words,
America's military is killing Americans. Oh, and millions of people in far away countries
(although, obviously, those deaths are in far away countries and they are of
brown-skinned people so they don't really count, do they?).
From comments (Is the USA government now a "regime"): In 2018, Republicans (AND Democrats) voted to cut $23 billion dollars from
the budget for food stamps (42 million Americans currently receive them). Regimes disobey international law. Like America's habit of
blowing up wedding parties with drones or the illegal presence of its troops in Syria, Iraq and God knows where else. Regimes carry
out illegal assassination programs – I need say no more here than Qasem Soleimani. Regimes use their economic power to bully and
impose their will – sanctioning countries even when they know those sanctions will, for example, be responsible for the death of
500,000 Iraqi children (the 'price worth paying', remember?). Regimes renege on international treaties – like Iran nuclear treaty,
for example. Regimes imprison and hound whistle-blowers – like Chelsea manning and Julian Assange. Regimes imprison people. America
is the world leader in incarceration. It has 2.2 million people in its prisons (more than China which has 5 times the US's
population), that's 25% of the world's prison population for 5% of the world's population, Why does America need so many prisoners?
Because it has a massive, prison-based, slave labour business that is hugely profitable for the oligarchy.
Regimes censor free speech. Just recently, we've seen numerous non-narrative following journalists and organisations kicked off
numerous social media platforms. I didn't see lots of US senators standing up and saying 'I disagree completely with what you say
but I will fight to the death to preserve your right to say it'. Did you?
Regimes are ruled by cliques. I don't need to tell you that America is kakistocratic Oligarchy ruled by a tiny group of evil,
rich, Old Men, do I?
Regimes keep bad company. Their allies are other 'regimes', and they're often lumped together by using another favourite presstitute
term – 'axis of evil'. America has its own little axis of evil. It's two main allies are Saudi Arabia – a homophobic, women hating,
head chopping, terrorist financing state currently engaged in a war of genocide (assisted by the US) in Yemen – and the racist,
genocidal undeclared nuclear power state of Israel.
Regimes commit human rights abuses. Here we could talk about…ooh…let's think. Last year's treatment of child refugees from Latin
America, the execution of African Americans for 'walking whilst black' by America's militarized, criminal police force or the
millions of dollars in cash and property seized from entirely innocent Americans by that same police force under 'civil forfeiture'
laws or maybe we could mention huge American corporations getting tax refunds whilst ordinary Americans can't afford decent,
effective healthcare.
Regimes finance terrorism. Mmmm….just like America financed terrorists to help destroy Syria and Libya and invested $5 billion
dollars to install another regime – the one of anti-Semites and Nazis in Ukraine…
Highly recommended!
Some comments edited for clarity...
Notable quotes:
"... But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. ..."
"... "I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street, and for the Bankers." ..."
"... Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between the careers of Butler and today's generation of forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia, but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed economic and imperial interests. ..."
"... When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised, remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are more of them today than there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a public critic of today's failing wars. ..."
"... The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson ; Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and Afghan War whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques. ..."
"... Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star. ..."
"... At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with " professionalization " after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft, and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted by critics at the time, created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most citizens had. ..."
"... One group of generals, however, reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day. ..."
"... That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say, United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say about the modern phenomenon of the " revolving door " in Washington. ..."
"... Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's the pity... ..."
"... Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads. ..."
"... Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks. "They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw). ..."
"... Today, the "Masters of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as "Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended! ..."
"... "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels ..."
"... The greatest anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti: ..."
"... The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power. ..."
"... If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are enthusiastically supporting the war effort. ..."
There once lived an odd little man - five feet nine inches tall and barely 140 pounds
sopping wet - who rocked the lecture circuit and the nation itself. For all but a few activist
insiders and scholars, U.S. Marine Corps Major General Smedley Darlington Butler is now lost to
history. Yet more than a century ago, this strange contradiction
of a man would become a national war hero, celebrated in pulp adventure novels, and then, 30
years later, as one of this country's most prominent antiwar and anti-imperialist
dissidents.
Raised in West Chester, Pennsylvania, and educated in Quaker (pacifist) schools, the son of
an influential congressman, he would end up serving in nearly all of America's " Banana Wars " from 1898 to
1931. Wounded in combat and a rare recipient of two Congressional Medals of Honor, he would
retire as the youngest, most decorated major general in the Marines.
A teenage officer and a certified hero during an international intervention in the Chinese
Boxer Rebellion
of 1900, he would later become a constabulary leader of the Haitian gendarme, the police chief
of Philadelphia (while on an approved absence from the military), and a proponent of Marine
Corps football. In more standard fashion, he would serve in battle as well as in what might
today be labeled peacekeeping , counterinsurgency , and
advise-and-assist missions in Cuba, China, the Philippines, Panama, Nicaragua, Mexico,
Haiti, France, and China (again). While he showed early signs of skepticism about some of those
imperial campaigns or, as they were sardonically called by critics at the time, " Dollar Diplomacy "
operations -- that is, military campaigns waged on behalf of U.S. corporate business interests
-- until he retired he remained the prototypical loyal Marine.
But after retirement, Smedley Butler changed his tune. He began to blast the
imperialist foreign policy and interventionist bullying in which he'd only recently played such
a prominent part. Eventually, in 1935 during the Great Depression, in what became a classic
passage in his memoir, which he
titled "War Is a Racket," he wrote:
"I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service... And during
that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall
Street, and for the Bankers."
Seemingly overnight, the famous war hero transformed himself into an equally acclaimed
antiwar speaker and activist in a politically turbulent era. Those were, admittedly, uncommonly
anti-interventionist years, in which veterans and politicians alike promoted what (for America,
at least) had been fringe ideas. This was, after all, the height of what later pro-war
interventionists would pejoratively label American " isolationism ."
Nonetheless, Butler was unique (for that moment and certainly for our own) in his
unapologetic amenability to left-wing domestic politics and materialist critiques of American
militarism. In the last years of his life, he would face increasing criticism from his former
admirer, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the military establishment, and the interventionist
press. This was particularly true after Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany invaded Poland and later
France. Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind, hindsight undoubtedly proved Butler's
virulent opposition to U.S. intervention in World War II wrong.
Nevertheless, the long-term erasure of his decade of antiwar and anti-imperialist activism
and the assumption that all his assertions were irrelevant has proven historically deeply
misguided. In the wake of America's brief but bloody entry into the First World War, the
skepticism of Butler (and a significant part of an entire generation of veterans) about
intervention in a new European bloodbath should have been understandable. Above all, however,
his critique of American militarism of an earlier imperial era in the Pacific and in Latin
America remains prescient and all too timely today, especially coming as it did from one of the
most decorated and high-ranking general officers of his time. (In the era of the never-ending
war on terror, such a phenomenon is quite literally inconceivable.)
Smedley Butler's Marine Corps and the military of his day was, in certain ways, a different
sort of organization than today's highly professionalized armed forces. History rarely repeats
itself, not in a literal sense anyway. Still, there are some disturbing similarities between
the careers of Butler and today's generation of
forever-war fighters. All of them served repeated tours of duty in (mostly) unsanctioned
wars around the world. Butler's conflicts may have stretched west from Haiti across the oceans
to China, whereas today's generals mostly lead missions from West Africa east to Central Asia,
but both sets of conflicts seemed perpetual in their day and were motivated by barely concealed
economic and imperial interests.
Nonetheless, whereas this country's imperial campaigns of the first third of the twentieth
century generated a Smedley Butler, the hyper-interventionism of the first decades of this
century hasn't produced a single even faintly comparable figure. Not one. Zero. Zilch. Why that
is matters and illustrates much about the U.S. military establishment and contemporary national
culture, none of it particularly encouraging.
Why No Antiwar Generals
When Smedley Butler retired in 1931, he was one of three Marine Corps major generals holding
a rank just below that of only the Marine commandant and the Army chief of staff. Today, with
about 900 generals and admirals currently serving on active duty, including 24 major
generals in the Marine Corps alone, and with scores of flag officers retiring annually, not a
single one has offered genuine public opposition to almost 19 years worth of ill-advised,
remarkably unsuccessful American wars . As for the most senior officers, the 40 four-star
generals and admirals whose vocal antimilitarism might make the biggest splash, there are
more of them today than
there were even at the height of the Vietnam War, although the active military is now about
half the size it was then. Adulated as many of them may be, however, not one qualifies as a
public critic of today's failing wars.
Instead, the principal patriotic dissent against those terror wars has come from retired
colonels, lieutenant colonels, and occasionally more junior officers (like me), as well as
enlisted service members. Not that there are many of us to speak of either. I consider it
disturbing (and so should you) that I personally know just about every one of the retired
military figures who has spoken out against America's forever wars.
The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson ;
Vietnam veteran and onetime West Point history instructor, retired Colonel Andrew Bacevich ; and Iraq veteran and
Afghan War
whistleblower , retired Lieutenant Colonel Danny Davis . All three have
proven to be genuine public servants, poignant voices, and -- on some level -- cherished
personal mentors. For better or worse, however, none carry the potential clout of a retired
senior theater commander or prominent four-star general offering the same critiques.
Something must account for veteran dissenters topping out at the level of colonel.
Obviously, there are personal reasons why individual officers chose early retirement or didn't
make general or admiral. Still, the system for selecting flag officers should raise at least a
few questions when it comes to the lack of antiwar voices among retired commanders. In fact, a
selection committee of top generals and admirals is appointed each year to choose the next
colonels to earn their first star. And perhaps you won't be surprised to learn that, according
to numerous reports , "the
members of this board are inclined, if not explicitly motivated, to seek candidates in their
own image -- officers whose careers look like theirs." At a minimal level, such a system is
hardly built to foster free thinkers, no less breed potential dissidents.
Consider it an irony of sorts that this system first received
criticism in our era of forever wars when General David Petraeus, then commanding the
highly publicized " surge " in Iraq, had to leave that
theater of war in 2007 to serve as the chair of that selection committee. The reason: he wanted
to ensure that a twice passed-over colonel, a protégé of his -- future Trump
National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster -- earned his star.
Mainstream national security analysts reported on this affair at the time as if it were a
major scandal, since most of them were convinced that Petraeus and his vaunted
counterinsurgency or " COINdinista "
protégés and their " new " war-fighting doctrine had the
magic touch that would turn around the failing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, Petraeus
tried to apply those very tactics twice -- once in each country -- as did acolytes of his
later, and you know the results
of that.
But here's the point: it took an eleventh-hour intervention by America's most acclaimed
general of that moment to get new stars handed out to prominent colonels who had, until then,
been stonewalled by Cold War-bred flag officers because they were promoting different (but also
strangely familiar) tactics in this country's wars. Imagine, then, how likely it would be for
such a leadership system to produce genuine dissenters with stars of any serious sort, no less
a crew of future Smedley Butlers.
At the roots of this system lay the obsession of the American officer corps with "
professionalization
" after the Vietnam War debacle. This first manifested itself in a decision to ditch the
citizen-soldier tradition, end the draft,
and create an "all-volunteer force." The elimination of conscription, as predicted
by critics at the time,
created an ever-growing civil-military divide, even as it increased public apathy regarding
America's wars by erasing whatever " skin in the game " most
citizens had.
More than just helping to squelch civilian antiwar activism, though, the professionalization
of the military, and of the officer corps in particular, ensured that any future Smedley
Butlers would be left in the dust (or in retirement at the level of lieutenant colonel or
colonel) by a system geared to producing faux warrior-monks. Typical of such figures is current
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army General Mark Milley. He may speak
gruffly and look like a man with a head of his own, but typically he's turned out to be
just another yes-man
for another
war-power -hungry president.
One group of generals, however,
reportedly now does have it out for President Trump -- but not because they're opposed to
endless war. Rather, they reportedly think that The Donald doesn't "listen enough to military
advice" on, you know, how to wage war forever and a day.
What Would Smedley Butler Think
Today?
In his years of retirement, Smedley Butler regularly focused on the economic component of
America's imperial war policies. He saw clearly that the conflicts he had fought in, the
elections he had helped rig, the coups he had supported, and the constabularies he had formed
and empowered in faraway lands had all served the interests of U.S. corporate investors. Though
less overtly the case today, this still remains a reality in America's post-9/11 conflicts,
even on occasion embarrassingly so (as when the Iraqi ministry of oil was essentially the
only public building protected by American troops as looters tore apart the Iraqi capital,
Baghdad, in the post-invasion chaos of April 2003). Mostly, however, such influence plays out
far more
subtly than that, both
abroad and here at home where those wars help maintain the record profits of the top
weapons makers of the military-industrial complex.
That beast, first identified by President Dwight D. Eisenhower, is now on
steroids as American commanders in retirement regularly
move directly from the military onto the boards of the giant defense contractors, a reality
which only contributes to the dearth of Butlers in the military retiree community. For all the
corruption of his time, the Pentagon didn't yet exist and the path from the military to, say,
United Fruit Company, Standard Oil, or other typical corporate giants of that moment had yet to
be normalized for retiring generals and admirals. Imagine what Butler would have had to say
about the modern phenomenon of the "
revolving door " in Washington.
Of course, he served in a very different moment, one in which military funding and troop
levels were still contested in Congress. As a longtime critic of capitalist excesses who wrote
for leftist publications and supported
the Socialist Party candidate in the 1936 presidential elections, Butler would have found
today's
nearly trillion-dollar annual defense budgets beyond belief. What the grizzled former
Marine long ago identified as a treacherous
nexus between warfare and capital "in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses
in lives" seems to have reached its natural end point in the twenty-first century. Case in
point: the record (and still
rising ) "defense" spending of the present moment, including -- to please a president --
the creation of a whole new military service aimed at the full-scale militarization of
space .
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution Americans still truly
trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be to have a high-ranking, highly
decorated, charismatic retired general in the Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around
those forever wars of ours. Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the
military system of our moment.
Of course, Butler didn't exactly end his life triumphantly. In late May 1940, having lost 25
pounds due to illness and exhaustion -- and demonized as a leftist, isolationist crank but
still maintaining a whirlwind speaking schedule -- he checked himself into the Philadelphia
Navy Yard Hospital for a "rest." He died there, probably of some sort of cancer, four weeks
later. Working himself to death in his 10-year retirement and second career as a born-again
antiwar activist, however, might just have constituted the very best service that the two-time
Medal of Honor winner could have given the nation he loved to the very end.
Someone of his credibility, character, and candor is needed more than ever today.
Unfortunately, this military generation is unlikely to produce such a figure. In retirement,
Butler himself boldly
confessed that, "like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of
my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I
obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical..."
Today, generals don't seem to have a thought of their own even in retirement. And more's
the pity...
2 minutes ago
Am I the only one to notice that Hollywood and it's film
distributors have gone full bore on "war" productions, glorifying these historical events while
using poetic license to rewrite history. Prepping the numbheads.
14 minutes ago
TULSI GABBARD.
Forget rank. As Mr Sjursen implies, dissidents are no longer allowed in the higher ranks.
"They" made sure to fix this as Mr Butler had too much of a mind of his own (US education
system also programmed against creative, charismatic thinkers, btw).
The US Space Force has been created as part of a plan to disclose the deep state's Secret
Space Program (SSP), which has been active for decades, and which has utilized, and repressed,
advanced technologies that would provide free, unlimited renewable energy, and thus eliminate
hunger and poverty on a planetary scale.
14 minutes ago
What imperialism?
We are spreading freedumb and dumbocracy.
We are saving the world from socialism and communism.
We are energy independent, with innate exceptionalism and #MAGA# will usher in a new era
of American prosperity.
Any and all accusations of USSA imperialism, are made by the "woke" and those jealous of
the greatest Capitalist system in the world.
The swamp is being drained as I speak, and therefore will continue with unwavering
support for my 5x draft dodging, Zionist supporting, multiple times bankrupt, keeper of
broken promises POTUS.
Smedley Butler's book is not worthy of reading once you have the seminal work known as
"The Art Of The Deal"
Sadly enough, in the age of Trump, as numerous
polls demonstrate, the U.S. military is the only public institution
Americans still truly trust. Under the circumstances, how useful it would be
to have a high-ranking, highly decorated, charismatic retired general in the
Butler mold galvanize an apathetic public around those forever wars of ours.
Unfortunately, the likelihood of that is practically nil, given the military
system of our moment.
This is why I feel an oath keeping constitutionally oriented American
general is what we need in power, clear out all 545 criminals in office now,
review their finances (and most of them will roll over on the others) and
punish accordingly, then the lobbyist, how many of them worked against the
country? You know what we do with those.
And then, finally, Hollywood, oh yes I long to see that **** hole burn with
everyone in it.
30 minutes ago
Republicrat: the two faces of the moar war whore.
32 minutes ago
Given the severity of the Nazi threat to mankind
Do tell, from what I've read the Nazis were really only a threat to a few
groups, the rest of us didn't need to worry.
35 minutes ago
Today, the "Masters
of the Permawars" refer to the international extortion, MIC, racket as
"Defending American Interests"! .....With never any explanation to the
public/American taxpayer just what "American Interests" the incredible
expenditures of American lives, blood, and treasure are being defended!
Why are we sending our children out into the hellholes of the world to be
maimed and killed in the fauxjew banksters' quest for world domination.
How stupid can we be!
41 minutes ago
(Edited) "Smedley Butler"... The last
time the UCMJ was actually used before being permanently turned into a "door
stop"!
49 minutes ago
He was correct about our staying out of WWII. Which, BTW,
would have never happened if we had stayed out of WWI.
22 minutes ago
(Edited)
Both wars were about the international fauxjew imposition of debt-money central
bankstering.
Both wars were promulgated by the Financial oligarchyof New York. The communist Red Army
of Russia was funded and supplied by the Financial oligarchyof New York. It was American Financial oligarchythat built the Russian Red Army that vexed the world and created the Cold War.
How many hundreds of millions of goyim were sacrificed to create both the
Russian and the Chinese Satanic behemoths.......and the communist horror that
is now embedded in American academia, publishing, American politics, so-called
news, entertainment, The worldwide Catholic religion, the Pentagon, and the
American deep state.......and more!
How stupid can we be. Every generation has the be dragged, kicking and
screaming, out of the eternal maw of historical ignorance to avoid falling back
into the myriad dark hellholes of history. As we all should know, people who
forget their own history are doomed to repeat it.
53 minutes ago
Today's
General is a robot with with a DNA.
54 minutes ago
All the General Staff is a
bunch of #asskissinglittlechickenshits
57 minutes ago
want to stop senseless
Empire wars>>well do this
War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit.. If we taxed all
war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start? 1 hour ago
Here
is a simple straightforward trading maxim that might apply here: if it works or
is working keep doing it, but if it doesn't work or stops working, then STOP
doing it. There are plenty of people, now poorer, for not adhering to that
simple principle. Where is the Taxpayer's return on investment from the Combat
taking place on their behalf around the globe? 'Nuff said - it isn't working.
It is making a microscopic few richer & all others poorer so STOP doing it.
36 seconds ago We don't have to look far to figure out who they are that are
getting rich off the fauxjew permawars.
How can we be so stupid???
1 hour ago
See also:
TULSI GABBARD
1 hour ago
The main reason you don't see the generals
criticizing is that the current crop have not been in actual long term direct
combat with the enemy and have mostly been bureaucratic paper pushers.
Take the
Marine Major General who is the current commander of CENTCOM. By the time he
got into the Iraq/Afghanistan war he was already a Lieutenant Colonel and far
removed from direct action.
He was only there on and off for a few years. Here
are some of his other career highlights aft as they appear on his official
bio:
2006-07: he served as the Military Secretary to the 33rd and 34th
Commandants of the Marine Corps
2008: he was selected by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to be the
Director of the Chairman's New Administration Transition Team (CNATT)
2009: he reported to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
Kabul, Afghanistan to serve as the Deputy to the Deputy Chief of Staff (DCOS)
for Stability. ..... Deputy to the Deputy for Stability ???? WTF is that?
2010: he was assigned as the Director, Strategy, Plans, and Policy (J-5) for
the U.S. Central Command
2012: he reported to Headquarters Marine Corps to serve as the Marine Corps
Representative to the Quadrennial Defense Review
In short, these top guys aren't warriors they're bureaucrats so why would we
expect them to be honest brokers of the truth?
51 minutes ago
are U saying
Chesty Puller he's NOT? 1 hour ago
(Edited) The purpose of war is to ensure
that the
Federal Reserve Note remains the world reserve paper currency of choice by
keeping it relevant and in demand across the globe by forcing pesky energy
producing nations to trade with it exclusively.
It is a 49 year old policy created by the private owners of quasi public
institutions called
central banks to ensure they remain the Wizards of Oz
doing gods work conjuring magic paper into existence with a secret
spell known as issuing credit.
How else is a technologically advanced society of billions of people
supposed to function w/out this
divinely inspired paper?
1 hour ago
Goebbels in "Churchill's Lie Factory"
where he said: "The Americans follow the principle that when one lies, one
should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of
looking ridiculous." - Jospeh Goebbels, "Aus Churchills Lügenfabrik,"
12. january 1941, Die Zeit ohne Beispiel
1 hour ago
The greatest
anti-imperialist of our times is Michael Parenti:
Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world history over the last
four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while oppressing indigenous
peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is seldom accorded any
serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and political leaders.
When not ignored outright, the subject of imperialism has been sanitized, so
that empires become "commonwealths," and colonies become "territories" or
"dominions" (or, as in the case of Puerto Rico, "commonwealths" too).
Imperialist military interventions become matters of "national defense,"
"national security," and maintaining "stability" in one or another region. In
this book I want to look at imperialism for what it really is.
"Imperialism has been the most powerful force in world
history over the last four or five centuries, carving up whole continents while
oppressing indigenous peoples and obliterating entire civilizations. Yet, it is
seldom accorded any serious attention by our academics, media commentators, and
political leaders."
Why would it when they who control academia, media and most of our
politicians are our enemies.
1 hour ago
"The big three are Secretary of State Colin Powell's former chief of
staff, retired Colonel
Lawrence
Wilkerson ; ..."
Yep, Wilkerson, who leaked Valerie Plame's name, not that it was a leak, to
Novak, and then stood by to watch the grand jury fry Scooter Libby. Wilkerson,
that paragon of moral rectitude. Wilkerson the silent, that *******.
sheesh,
1 hour ago
(Edited)
" A standing military force, with an overgrown
Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence
against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home.
Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was
apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of
defending, have enslaved the people."
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a
standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the
rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia,
in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of
Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment [I Annals
of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789])
A particularly pernicious example of intra-European
imperialism was the Nazi aggression during World War II, which gave the German
business cartels and the Nazi state an opportunity to plunder the resources and
exploit the labor of occupied Europe, including the slave labor of
concentration camps. - M. PARENTI, Against empire
See Alexander Parvus
1 hour ago
Collapse is the cure. It's
too far gone.
1 hour ago
Russia Wants to 'Jam' F-22 and F-35s in the Middle
East: Report
ZH retards think that the American mic is bad and all other mics are
good or don't exist. That's the power of brainwashing. Humans understand that
war in general is bad, but humans are becoming increasingly rare in this world.
1 hour ago
The obvious types of American fascists are dealt with on the air and
in the press. These demagogues and stooges are fronts for others. Dangerous as
these people may be, they are not so significant as thousands of other people
who have never been mentioned. The really dangerous American fascists are not
those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its
finger on those. The dangerous American fascist is the man who wants to do in
the United States in an American way what Hitler did in Germany in a Prussian
way. The American fascist would prefer not to use violence. His method is to
poison the channels of public information. With a fascist the problem is never
how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to
deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more
power.
If we define an American fascist as one who in case of conflict puts money and
power ahead of human beings, then there are undoubtedly several million
fascists in the United States. There are probably several hundred thousand if
we narrow the definition to include only those who in their search for money
and power are ruthless and deceitful. Most American fascists are
enthusiastically supporting the war effort.
The swamp is bigger than the military alone. Substitute Bureaucrat,
Statesman, or Beltway Bandit for General and Colonel in your writing above and
you've got a whole new article to post that is just as true.
2 hours ago
(Edited) War = jobs and profit..we get work "THEY" get the profit..If we taxed
all war related profit at 99% how many wars would our rulers start?
2 hours ago [edited for clarity]
War is a racket. And nobody loves a
racket more than Financial oligarchy. Americans come close though, that's why Financial oligarchy use them to
project their own rackets and provide protection reprisals.
This was an outright declaration of "class war" against working-class voters by a
"university-credentialed overclass" -- "managerial elite" which changed sides and allied with
financial oligrchy. See "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite" by
Michael Lind
Notable quotes:
"... By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama factions in CIA and FBI. ..."
It looks like Bloomberg is finished. He just committed political suicide with his comments
about farmers and metal workers.
BTW Bloomberg's plan is highly hypocritical -- like is Bloomberg himself.
During the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" was
staged in the USA by "managerial elite" which like Soviet nomenklatura (which also staged a
neoliberal coup d'état) changed sides and betrayed the working class.
So those neoliberal scoundrels reversed the class compromise embodied in the New Deal.
The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the neoliberal managerial class and financial
oligarchy who got to power via the "Quiet Coup" was the global labor arbitrage in which
production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations.
So all those "improving education" plans are, to a large extent, the smoke screen over the
fact that the US workers now need to compete against highly qualified and lower cost
immigrants and outsourced workforce.
The fact is that it is very difficult to find for US graduates in STEM disciplines a
decent job, and this is by design.
Also, after the "Reagan neoliberal revolution" ( actually a coup d'état ), profits
were maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of the
immigrant workforce (the collapse of the USSR helped greatly ). They push down wages and
compete for jobs with their domestic counterparts, including the recent graduates. So the
situation since 1991 was never too bright for STEM graduates.
By canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War
II, the neoliberal elite saws the seed of the current populist backlash. The "soft
neoliberal" backbone of the Democratic Party (Clinton wing) were incapable of coming to terms
with Hillary Clinton's defeat -- the rejection of the establishment candidate by the US
population and first of all by the working class. The result has been the neo-McCarthyism
campaign and the attempt to derail Trump via color revolution spearheaded by Brennan-Obama
factions in CIA and FBI.
See also recently published "The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial
Elite" by Michael Lind.
One of his quotes:
The American oligarchy spares no pains in promoting the belief that it does not exist,
but the success of its disappearing act depends on equally strenuous efforts on the part of
an American public anxious to believe in egalitarian fictions and unwilling to see what is
hidden in plain sight.
"... To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. ..."
"... Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt. ..."
"... Many on the left have been incapable of coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of "Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists." ..."
"... To Lind, the case is much more straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on Social Security) and right on immigration. ..."
"... Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the working class set sector-wide wages. ..."
"... This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from the ground up. ..."
"... But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent populist backlash on itself. ..."
"... American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms; they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are capitalistically run enterprises. ..."
"... In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist (albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism." ..."
"... A cursory glance at the recent impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability of the vital center from polar extremes. ..."
A FEW DAYS AFTER Donald Trump's electoral upset in 2016, Club for Growth co-founder Stephen
Moore told an
audience of Republican House members that the GOP was "now officially a Trump working class
party." No longer the party of traditional Reaganite conservatism, the GOP had been converted
instead "into a populist America First party." As he uttered these words, Moore says, "the
shock was palpable" in the room.
The Club for Growth had long dominated Republican orthodoxy by promoting low tax rates and
limited government. Any conservative candidate for political office wanting to reap the
benefits of the Club's massive fundraising arm had to pay homage to this doctrine. For one of
its formerly leading voices to pronounce the transformation of this orthodoxy toward a more
populist nationalism showed just how much the ground had shifted on election night.
To writer Michael Lind, Trump's victory, along with Brexit and other populist stirrings
in Europe, was an outright declaration of "class war" by alienated working-class voters against
what he calls a "university-credentialed overclass" of managerial elites. The title of
Lind's new book, The New Class War: Saving Democracy from the Managerial Elite ,
leaves no doubt as to where his sympathies lie, though he's adamant that he's not some sort of
guru for a " smarter
Trumpism ," as some have labeled him.
Lind cautions against a turn to populism, which he believes to be too
personality-centered and intellectually incoherent -- not to mention, too demagogic -- to help
solve the terminal crisis of "technocratic neoliberalism" with its rule by self-righteous and
democratically unaccountable "experts" with hyperactive Twitter handles. Only a return to what
Lind calls "democratic pluralism" will help stem the tide of the populist revolt.
The New Class War is a breath of fresh air. Many on the left have been incapable of
coming to terms with Hillary Clinton's defeat. The result has been the stifling climate of a
neo-McCarthyism, in which the only explanation for Trump's success was an unholy alliance of
"Putin stooges" and unrepentant "white supremacists."
To Lind, the case is much more
straightforward: while the vast majority of Americans supports Social Security spending and
containing unskilled immigration, the elites of the bipartisan swamp favor libertarian free
trade policies combined with the steady influx of unskilled migrants to help suppress wage
levels in the United States. Trump had outflanked his opponents in the Republican primaries and
Clinton in the general election by tacking left on the economy (he refused to lay hands on
Social Security) and right on immigration.
The strategy has since been successfully repeated in the United Kingdom by Boris Johnson,
and it looks, for now, like a foolproof way for conservative parties in the West to capture or
defend their majorities against center-left parties that are too beholden to wealthy,
metropolitan interests to seriously attract working-class support. Berating the latter as
irredeemably racist certainly doesn't help either.
What happened in the preceding decades to produce this divide in Western democracies? Lind's
narrative begins with the New Deal, which had brought to an end what he calls "the first class
war" in favor of a class compromise between management and labor. This first class war is the
one we are the most familiar with: originating in the Industrial Revolution, which had produced
the wretchedly poor proletariat, it soon led to the rise of competing parties of organized
workers on the one hand and the liberal bourgeoisie on the other, a clash that came to a head
in the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Then, in the 1930s, while the world was writhing from the
consequences of the Great Depression, a series of fascist parties took the reigns in countries
from Germany to Spain. To spare the United States a similar descent into barbarism, President
Franklin D. Roosevelt implemented the New Deal, in which the working class would find a seat at
the bargaining table under a government-supervised tripartite system where business and
organized labor met seemingly as equals and in which collective bargaining would help the
working class set sector-wide wages.
This class compromise ruled unquestioned for the first decades of the postwar era. It was
made possible thanks to the system of democratic pluralism, which allowed working-class and
rural constituencies to actively partake in mass-membership organizations like unions as well
as civic and religious institutions that would empower these communities to shape society from
the ground up.
But then, amid the stagflation crisis of the 1970s, a "neoliberal revolution from above" set
in that sought to reverse the class compromise. The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the
newly emboldened managerial class was "global labor arbitrage" in which production is
outsourced to countries with lower wage levels and laxer regulations; alternatively, profits
can be maximized by putting downward pressure on domestic wages through the introduction of an
unskilled, non-unionized immigrant workforce that competes for jobs with its unionized domestic
counterparts. By one-sidedly canceling the class compromise that governed the capitalist
societies after World War II, Lind concludes, the managerial elite had brought the recent
populist backlash on itself.
Likewise, only it can contain this backlash by returning to the bargaining table and
reestablishing the tripartite system it had walked away from. According to Lind, the new class
peace can only come about on the level of the individual nation-state because transnational
treaty organizations like the EU cannot allow the various national working classes to escape
the curse of labor arbitrage. This will mean that unskilled immigration will necessarily have
to be curbed to strengthen the bargaining power of domestic workers. The free-market orthodoxy
of the Club for Growth will also have to take a backseat, to be replaced by government-promoted
industrial strategies that invest in innovation to help modernize their national economies.
Under which circumstances would the managerial elites ever return to the bargaining table?
"The answer is fear," Lind suggests -- fear of working-class resentment of hyper-woke,
authoritarian elites. Ironically, this leaves all the agency with the ruling class, who first
acceded to the class compromise, then canceled it, and is now called on to forge a new one lest
its underlings revolt.
Lind rightly complains all throughout the book that the old mass-membership based
organizations of the 20th century have collapsed. He's coy, however, about who would
reconstitute them and how. At best, Lind argues for a return to the old system where party
bosses and ward captains served their local constituencies through patronage, but once more
this leaves the agency with entities like the Republicans and Democrats who have a combined
zero members. As the third-party activist Howie Hawkins remarked cunningly elsewhere ,
American parties are not organized parties built around active members and policy platforms;
they are shifting coalitions of entrepreneurial candidate campaign organizations. Hence, the
Democratic and Republican Parties are not only capitalist ideologically; they are
capitalistically run enterprises.
Thus, they would hardly be the first options one would think of to reinvigorate the forces
of civil society toward self-rule from the bottom up.
The key to Lind's fraught logic lies hidden in plain sight -- in the book's title. Lind does
not speak of "class struggle ," the heroic Marxist narrative in which an organized
proletariat strove for global power; no, "class war " smacks of a gloomy, Hobbesian
war of all against all in which no side truly stands to win.
In the epigraph to the book, Lind cites approvingly the 1949 treatise The Vital
Center by historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. who wrote that "class conflict, pursued to
excess, may well destroy the underlying fabric of common principle which sustains free
society." Schlesinger was just one among many voices who believed that Western societies after
World War II were experiencing the "end of ideology." From now on, the reasoning went, the
ideological battles of yesteryear were settled in favor of a more disinterested capitalist
(albeit New Deal–inflected) governance. This, in turn, gave rise to the managerial forces
in government, the military, and business whose unchecked hold on power Lind laments. The
midcentury social-democratic thinker Michael Harrington had it right when he wrote that "[t]he
end of ideology is a shorthand way of saying the end of socialism."
Looked at from this perspective, the break between the postwar Fordist regime and
technocratic neoliberalism isn't as massive as one would suppose. The overclass antagonists of The New Class War believe that they derive their power from the same "liberal order"
of the first-class peace that Lind upholds as a positive utopia. A cursory glance at the recent
impeachment hearings bears witness to this, as career bureaucrats complained that President
Trump unjustifiably sought to change the course of an American foreign policy that had been
nobly steered by them since the onset of the Cold War. In their eyes, Trump, like the Brexiteers or the French yellow vest protesters, are vulgar usurpers who threaten the stability
of the vital center from polar extremes.
A more honest account of capitalism would also acknowledge its natural tendencies to
persistently contract and to disrupt the social fabric. There is thus no reason to believe why
some future class compromise would once and for all quell these tendencies -- and why
nationalistically operating capitalist states would not be inclined to confront each other
again in war.
Reagan was a free-trader and a union buster. Lind's people jumped the Democratic ship
to vote for Reagan in (lemming-like) droves. As Republicans consolidated power over labor
with cheap goods from China and the meth of deficit spending Democrats struggled with
being necklaced as the party of civil rights.
The idea that people who are well-informed ought not to govern is a sad and sick cover
story that the culpable are forced to chant in their caves until their days are done, the
reckoning being too great.
Here's another view: Zionist Bloomberg and Zionist Biden and Zionist Buttigieg and Zionist
Klubachar and Zionist Warren and Zionist Sanders competing to race against Zionist Trump. I
think I know who the winners and losers are already.
Yes pft, the favored candidate of the DNC is clearly Trump.
Posted by: Blue Dotterel | Feb 6 2020 19:25 utc | 58
Only if the ungrateful commoners who identify as Democrats or moderates can't be brought to
heel and give their full throated support for the DNC's favoured Cookie Cutter candidate who
might as well be one of those dolls with a string and a recording you hear when you pull the
string.
Then yes, they would prefer 'fore moar years!!' of the Ugliest American ever to be
installed as President of the United States.
One of things I respect about Tulsi Gabbard is she ain't no Doll with a string attached.
When she made the comment about cleaning out the rot in the Democratic Party, she left no
doubt her intent and goals. And to take on hillary, the Red Queen to boot, why that was
simply delicious.
Alas, the View, the DNC, it's web of evil rich and the media will never forgive her for
Soldiering for her Country.
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) announced Friday afternoon that the criteria for
making the debate stage will no longer include a requirement about individual donors --
allowing Bloomberg, whose campaign is largely self-funded, to join the candidates if his
polling numbers reach the new threshold.
Comedian and writer Jack Allison took a wry look at
the changes and what they mean about the party. "Remember when they wouldn't even think of
changing them for like Cory Booker," Allison tweeted . "This is what we
mean when we talk about the DNC cheating, obviously and out in the open."
"Thankfully seeing Bloomberg speak can only hurt his standing," Allison added,
"but still."
But it was outspoken filmmaker Michael Moore that really went off on the DNC's decision.
Speaking Friday night at a Sanders rally in Clive, Iowa, Moore went on an expletive-filled rant
against the party.
Gosh Bernie, haven't you read about yourself in Profiles of Corruption . If you can
be corrupt why can't the DNC be corrupt? It's only fair. How do you expect the people running
the DNC to become millionaires like you? Shouldn't they be able to pocket a little of Mike
Bloomberg's $325,000? Don't be a poor loser. Maintain dignity.
Trump is such a douchebag. He claims there were no lives lost due to their "early warning system" -- no mention that the "early
warning system" was a phone call!
Now he's once again justifying assassination, etc.
there was no "better choice" between trump and clinton. i still think clinton represented a greater danger than trump of getting
into a war with russia, but they are both warmongers first class. for our next election, we may have a choice between ebola and
flesh eating bacteria, or brain cancer and leprosy. if the game is rigged there's no winning it playing by the game's "rules".
"... Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News, ..."
"... My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes. ..."
My favorite paragraph from the NYT article depicting Tulsi as a fringe, divisive cult
leader because she wears white pants suits - by the same author and paper who heaped praise
on how Hillary's white pants suit shows she's ready to carry the nuclear codes.
Her white suits are not the white suits of Ms. Clinton, nor even the white of Ms.
Williamson, whose early appearances in the shadeoften seemed tied to her wellness gospel
and ideas of renewal and rebirth. Rather, they are the white of avenging angels and flaming
swords, of somewhat combative righteousness (also cult leaders').
And that kind of association, though it can be weirdly compelling, is also not really
community building. It sets someone apart, rather than joining others together. It has
connotations of the fringe, rather than the center.
A New York Times writer who praised Hillary Clinton for wearing a white pantsuit called
Tulsi Gabbard a "cult leader" for wearing exactly the same thing.
You know what they say about karma being a (word that rhymes with "witch"), right?
At the second Democratic presidential primary debate back in July, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (HI)
absolutely torched Sen. Kamala Harris' (CA) criminal justice
reform record during her time as California's attorney general. It was the political shot
heard round the world.
Understandably, Harris was none too pleased about it and let it be known in a post-debate
interview in what Brandon Morse
described at the time as a "childish and elitist"
response :
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: Did you expect that from Tulsi Gabbard? Had you had interaction
about that in the past? And how do you think it went?
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS: Well, I mean, listen, I -- this is going to sound immodest, but I'm
obviously a top-tier candidate, and so I did expect that I would be on the stage and take
hits tonight because there are a lot of people that are trying to make the stage for the next
debate.
COOPER: For a lot of them it's do or die.
HARRIS: Especially when some people are at zero or 1%, whatever she might be at. So I did
expect that I might take hits tonight.
It was a particularly cheap shot from someone who'd had such a disastrously poor debate
performance. She actually stooped even lower during the same interview with Cooper, calling
Gabbard an "apologist" for Syrian president Bashar al-Assad.
Well, here we are three months later, and the tables have dramatically turned. Not only has
Kamala Harris'
campaign cratered , but in some national and state polls Gabbard is now ahead of her, in
spite of
vicious attacks on the Hawaii congresswoman earlier this month from failed 2016 Democratic
presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
First up, the CNN/UH state poll out of New Hampshire:
... ... ...
Here's how things have trended in that poll since July:
... ... ...
Next, a national poll from Suffolk University and USA Today:
... ... ...
The trend on that one looks like this:
... ... ...
To be fair, there
are other polls taken recently that show Harris ahead of Gabbard by a few percentage
points, but it's still gotta sting Harris to know that the woman whose numbers she made fun of
back in July is polling ahead of her in select polls now.
Daily Caller's James Hasson calls it for what it is:
... ... ...
To make matters worse for Harris, Gabbard is just one
poll away from qualifying for the November Democratic debate (which is scheduled for
Nov. 20th in Georgia ).
Assuming Gabbard ends up qualifying, one has to wonder if she'll be prepared to use a
rhetorical finishing maneuver on her political foe this time around (assuming the mods
don't run interference ).
-- Based in North Carolina, Sister
Toldjah is a former liberal and a 16+ year veteran of blogging with an emphasis on media
bias, social issues, and the culture wars. Read her Red State archives here . Connect with her on Twitter . –
Only a few months ago, the Democrats' drive to the White House began with the loftiest of ideals, albeit a hodgepodge from trans
toilet "rights" to a 100 percent makeover of the health care system. It is now all about vengeance, clumsy and grossly partisan at
that, gussied up as "saving democracy." Our media is dominated by angry Hillary refighting 2016 and "joking" about running again,
with Adam Schiff now the face of the party for 2020. The war of noble intentions has devolved into Pelosi's March to the Sea. Any
chance for a Democratic candidate to reach into the dark waters and pull America to where she can draw breath again and heal has
been lost.
Okay, deep breath myself. A couple of times a week, I walk past the
café where Allen Ginsberg, the Beat poet, often wrote.
His most famous poem, Howl , begins, "I saw the best minds of my generation
destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked." The walk is a good leveler, a reminder that madness (Trump Derangement in modern
terminology) is not new in politics.
But Ginsberg wrote in a time when one could joke about coded messages -- before the Internet came into being to push tailored
ticklers straight into people's brains. I'll take my relief in knowing that almost everything Trump and others write, on Twitter
and in the Times , is designed simply to get attention and getting our attention today requires ever louder and crazier stuff.
What will get us to look up anymore? Is that worth playing with fire over?
It is easy to lose one's sense of humor over all this. It is easy to end up like Ginsberg at the end of his poem, muttering
to strangers at what a mess this had all become: "Real holy laughter in the river! They saw it all! the wild eyes! the holy yells!
They bade farewell! They jumped off the roof! To solitude!" But me, I don't think it's funny at all.
"Harris is the establishment's primary backup candidate after Biden. She was supposed to coast through the primaries while all
the attention was on Handsy Joe. Now she's wounded, and the establishment is royally pissed."
Notable quotes:
"... Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it. ..."
Not only was she not supposed to attack Kamala Harris, but she most certainly wasn't
supposed to have landed such an effective blow and lived to tell about it.
Let's see if they can keep Bernie in the same cage they put Tulsi in. I can't imagine
they'll be helpful or even polite to him. I expect "debate" questions such as:
Senator Sanders, are you current in your communist party dues?
Bernie, when did you last speak to Vladimir Putin?
How often are you wrong about FDR?
Is your wife still laundering money for beach houses through small liberal arts colleges?
Do you know how to pay for anything, or do you regularly leave restaurants without paying
your bill?
Bonus question: explain why anyone should continue to pay attention to you when your views
are shared by everyone on stage?
Miss Gabbard just served two tours in the ME, one as enlisted in the HI National Guard.
Brave Mr. Bolton kept the dirty communists from endangering the US supply of Chesapeake
crab while serving in the Maryland Guard. Rumor also has it that he helped Tompall Glaser
write the song Streets of Baltimore. Some say they saw Mr. Bolton single handily defending
Memorial Stadium from a combined VC/NVA attack during an Orioles game. The Cubans would have
conquered the Pimlico Race Course if not for the combat skill of PFC Bolton.
Looks like Bolton is dyed-in-the-wool imperialist. He believes the United States can do what wants without regard to
international law, treaties or the роlitical commitments of previous administrations.
Notable quotes:
"... Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean ..."
...Zionists know what they want, are willing to work together towards their goals, and put their money where their mouth
is. In contrast, for a few pennies the goyim will renounce any principle they pretend to cherish, and go on happily proclaiming
the opposite even if a short while down the road it'll get their own children killed.
The real sad part about this notion of the goy as a mere beast in human form is maybe not that it got codified for eternity
in the Talmud, but rather that there may be some truth to it? Another way of saying this is raising the question whether the goyim
deserve better, given what we see around us.
Israel is an Anglo American aircraft carrier to control the Eastern Mediterranean and prevent a Turko Egyptian and possibly Persian
invasion of Greece & the West
"... United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old, it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting. That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are voting for. ..."
"... Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of political powers. ..."
Uh, no, Tom, she won't be collecting a lot of voters, well, at least not near enough. Biden
has already been "chosen" like Hillary was over Bernie last time. You should know by now Tom,
we don't select our candidates, they're chosen for us for our own good. 2 hours ago
This is going to take a long time. You just can't turn this ship around overnight.
US Political System:
United States is neither a Republic and even less Socialistic. US, in the technical
literature, is called a Polyarchy (state capitalism). Polyarchy (state capitalism) idea is old,
it goes back to James Madison and the foundation of the US Constitution. A Polyarchy is a
system in which power resides in the hands of those who Madison called the wealth of the
nation. The educated and responsible class of men. The rest of the population is to be
fragmented and distracted. They are allowed to participate every couple of years by voting.
That's it. The population have little choice among the educated and responsible men they are
voting for.
This is not an accident. America was founded on the principle, explained by the Founding
Father that the primary goal of government is to protect the minority of the opulent against
the majority. That is how the US Constitution was designed sort of ensuring that there will be
a lot of struggle. US is not as the same as it were two centuries ago but that remains the
elites ideal.
Polyarchy (state capitalism) it is a system where small group actually rules on behalf of
capital, and majority's decision making is confined to choosing among selective number of
elites within tightly controlled elective process. It is a form of consensual domination made
possible by the structural domination of the global capital which allowed concentration of
political powers.
A republic is SUBORDINATE to democracy. Polyarchy can't be subordinated to any form of
Democracy. 2 hours ago Is the author, to use an English term, daft? Tulsi Gabbard won't get out
of the primaries, much less defeat Sanders or Biden. Farage achieved his goal (Brexit), then
found out (SHOCK!) that the will of the people doesn't mean anything anymore.
If Luongo had wanted to talk about the people's uprising, he should've mentioned the Tea
Party. 3 hours ago Gabbard appears to have some moral fibre and half a backbone, at least for a
politician, regardless of their views, Farage is a slimy charlatan opportunistic populist shill
3 hours ago (Edited) I like Tulsi Gabbard on MIC stuff (and as a surfer in my youth - still
dream about that almost endless pipeline at Jeffreys Bay in August), but...
On everything else?
She votes along party lines no matter what bollocks legislation the Democrats put in front
of Congress. And anyone standing full-square behind Saunders on his socialist/marxist
agenda?
Do me a favour. 1 hour ago (Edited) Farage left because he saw what UKIP was becoming...a
zionazi party.
Also Gabbard is a CFR member. 3 hours ago Gold, Goats and Guns? Certainly not guns under
President Gabbard! Here's her idea of "common sense gun control:"
I'm totally against warmongering, but I have to ask - what good is it to stop foreign
warmongering, only to turn around and incite civil war here by further raping the 2nd
Amendment? The CFR ties are disturbing as hell, too. And to compare Gabbard to Ron Paul? No,
just...no! 3 hours ago Always been a fan of Bernie, but I hope Gabbard becomes president. The
world would breathe a huge sigh of relief (before the assassination). 4 hours ago By this time
in his 1st term, Obama had started the US Wars in Syria and Libya and has restarted the Iraq
War.
Thus far Trump has ended the War in Syria, pledged not to get us dragged into Libya's civil
wars and started a peace process with North Korea.
Venezuela and Iran look scary. We don't know what Gabbard would actually do when faced with
the same events. Obama talked peace too.
CBS News (2/4/19) briefly interviewed Honolulu Civil Beats reporter Nick Grube regarding
Gabbard's campaign announcement. The anchors had clearly never encountered the term
anti-interventionism before, struggling to even pronounce the word, then laughing and
saying it "doesn't roll off the tongue."
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode. ..."
"... The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state and the oligarchs ..."
"... Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure to see it coming. ..."
"... Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ..."
"... the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or (IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense ..."
"... Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted. Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered, hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent. ..."
"... The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump, and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya. ..."
Thaks b, now that is a delightful question to pose on the eve of April fool's day.
My suggestion is that Cambridge Analytica and others backing Trump and the yankee imperial
machine have been taking measurements of USA citizens opinions and are staggered by the
results. They are panicked!
I suspect that the cool aid is not working effectively these days and that far too many
people see through the charades and lies. An interesting story lurks behind this and the
entire 'hate Russia' and 'monkey Mueller' episode.
The attitudes of the masses are spinning out of the manipulative hands of the deep state
and the oligarchs. Do any of our comrades have a handle on this type of research and the
implication for voter attitudes?
" Russiagate became a convenient replacement explanation absolving an incompetent
political establishment for its complicity in what happened in 2016, and not just the failure
to see it coming.
Because of the immediate arrival of the collusion theory, neither Wolf
Blitzer nor any politician ever had to look into the camera and say, "I guess people hated us
so much they were even willing to vote for Donald Trump ."
As a peedupon all I can see is that the elite seem to be fighting amongst themselves or
(IMO) providing cover for ongoing elite power/control efforts. It might not be about
private/public finance in a bigger picture but I can't see anything else that makes sense
Thanks for the Taibbi link. I hadn't seen it, and found him to be in good form. I do think
he ought to have spoken more about how bad Trump's Primary opponents were.
Most of those reporters were going to slant their stories the way their bosses wanted.
Their jobs are just too nice to do otherwise. Getting Trump as Hillary's opponent had to have
been a goal for the majority of them. He was the patsy who would become squished roadkill in
the treads of The Most Experienced Presidential Candidate In History. More on that for people
with strong stomachs:
Hillary Clinton is a knowledgeable, well-prepared, reasonable, experienced, even-tempered,
hardworking candidate, while her opponent is a stubbornly uninformed demagogue who has been
proven again and again to be a liar on matters big and small. There is no objective basis
on which to equate Hillary Clinton to her opponent.
The author had it half right. Turns out the voters knew quite a bit about Trump,
and still preferred him to the Butcher of Libya.
But sophistication of intelligence agencies now reached very high level. Russiage was pretty dirty but pretty slick operation. British
thre letter againces were even more devious, if we view Skripals poisoning as MI5/Mi6 "witness protection" operation due to possible
Skripal role in creating Steele dossier. So let's keep wanting the evnet. The election 2020 might be event more interesting the Elections
of 2016. Who would suggest in 2015 that he/she elects man candidate from Israel lobby instead of a woman candidate from the same lobby?
Notable quotes:
"... The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an attack on them. ..."
"... Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared him perfectly for his present role. ..."
"... the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than by any intrinsic superiority. ..."
"... The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance, functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds. ..."
"... Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. ..."
"... Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged. ..."
"... Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. ..."
One might object that Trump, a billionaire TV star, does not resemble his followers. But this misses the powerful intimacy that he
establishes with them, at rallies, on TV and on Twitter. Part of his malicious genius lies in his ability to forge a bond with people
who are otherwise excluded from the world to which he belongs. Even as he cast Hillary Clinton as the tool of international finance,
he said:
I do deals – big deals – all the time. I know and work with all the toughest operators in the world of high-stakes global finance.
These are hard-driving, vicious cut-throat financial killers, the kind of people who leave blood all over the boardroom table
and fight to the bitter end to gain maximum advantage.
With these words he brought his followers into the boardroom with him and encouraged them to take part in a shared, cynical exposure
of the soiled motives and practices that lie behind wealth. His role in the Birther movement, the prelude to his successful presidential
campaign, was not only racist, but also showed that he was at home with the most ignorant, benighted, prejudiced people in America.
Who else but a complete loser would engage in Birtherism, so far from the Hollywood, Silicon Valley and Harvard aura that elevated
Obama, but also distanced him from the masses?
The consistent derogation of Trump in the New York Times or on MSNBC may be helpful in keeping the resistance fired up, but
it is counterproductive when it comes to breaking down the Trump coalition. His followers take every attack on their leader as an
attack on them. 'The fascist leader's startling symptoms of inferiority', Adorno wrote, 'his resemblance to ham actors and asocial
psychopaths', facilitates the identification, which is the basis of the ideal. On the Access Hollywood tape, which was widely assumed
would finish him, Trump was giving voice to a common enough daydream, but with 'greater force' and greater 'freedom of libido' than
his followers allow themselves. And he was bolstering the narcissism of the women who support him, too, by describing himself as
helpless in the grip of his desires for them.
Adorno also observed that demagoguery of this sort is a profession, a livelihood with well-tested methods. Trump is a far
more familiar figure than may at first appear. The demagogue's appeals, Adorno wrote, 'have been standardised, similarly to the advertising
slogans which proved to be most valuable in the promotion of business'. Trump's background in salesmanship and reality TV prepared
him perfectly for his present role. According to Adorno,
the leader can guess the psychological wants and needs of those susceptible to his propaganda because he resembles them
psychologically, and is distinguished from them by a capacity to express without inhibitions what is latent in them, rather than
by any intrinsic superiority.
To meet the unconscious wishes of his audience, the leader
simply turns his own unconscious outward Experience has taught him consciously to exploit this faculty, to make rational use
of his irrationality, similarly to the actor, or a certain type of journalist who knows how to sell their sensitivity.
All he has to do in order to make the sale, to get his TV audience to click, or to arouse a campaign rally, is exploit his own
psychology.
Using old-fashioned but still illuminating language, Adorno continued:
The leaders are generally oral character types, with a compulsion to speak incessantly and to befool the others. The famous
spell they exercise over their followers seems largely to depend on their orality: language itself, devoid of its rational significance,
functions in a magical way and furthers those archaic regressions which reduce individuals to members of crowds.
Since uninhibited associative speech presupposes at least a temporary lack of ego control, it can indicate weakness as well
as strength. The agitators' boasting is frequently accompanied by hints of weakness, often merged with claims of strength. This was
particularly striking, Adorno wrote, when the agitator begged for monetary contributions. As with the Birther movement or Access
Hollywood, Trump's self-debasement – pretending to sell steaks on the campaign trail – forges a bond that secures his idealised status.
Since 8 November 2016, many people have concluded that what they understandably view as a catastrophe was the result of the
neglect by neoliberal elites of the white working class, simply put. Inspired by Bernie Sanders, they believe that the Democratic
Party has to reorient its politics from the idea that 'a few get rich first' to protection for the least advantaged.
Yet no one who lived through the civil rights and feminist rebellions of recent decades can believe that an economic programme
per se is a sufficient basis for a Democratic-led politics.
This holds as well when it comes to trying to reach out to Trump's supporters. Of those providing his roughly 40 per cent
approval ratings, half say they 'strongly approve' and are probably lost to the Democrats. But if we understand the personal
level at which pro-Trump strivings operate, we may better appeal to the other half, and in that way forestall the coming emergency.
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
"... Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president. ..."
"... Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan (!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells. ..."
"... Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars. ..."
"... "Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case? At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run. ..."
"... Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks. ..."
When President Donald Trump announced in December that he wanted an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria, there was
more silence and opposition from the Left than approval. The 2016 election's highest-profile progressive, Senator Bernie Sanders,
said virtually nothing at the time. The 2018 midterm election's Left celeb, former congressman Beto O'Rourke, kept mum too. The 2004
liberal hero, Howard Dean, came out against troop withdrawals,
saying they would damage women's rights
in Afghanistan.
The liberal news outlet on which Warren made her statement, MSNBC, which had already been sounding more like Fox News circa 2003,
warned that withdrawal from Syria could hurt national security. The left-leaning news channel has even made common cause with Bill
Kristol and other neoconservatives in its shared opposition to all things Trump.
Maddow herself has not only vocally opposed the president's decision, but has become arguably more popular than ever with liberal
viewers by peddling
wild-eyed anti-Trump conspiracy theories worthy of Alex Jones. Reacting to one of her cockamamie theories, progressive journalist
Glenn Greenwald tweeted , "She is Glenn Beck
standing at the chalkboard. Liberals celebrate her (relatively) high ratings as proof that she's right, but Beck himself proved that
nothing produces higher cable ratings than feeding deranged partisans unhinged conspiracy theories that flatter their beliefs."
The Trump derangement that has so enveloped the Left on everything, including foreign policy, is precisely what makes Democratic
presidential candidate Warren's Syria withdrawal position so noteworthy. One can safely assume that Sanders, O'Rourke, Dean, MSNBC,
Maddow, and many of their fellow progressive travelers' silence on or resistance to troop withdrawal is simply them gauging what
their liberal audiences currently want or will accept.
Warren could have easily gone either way, succumbing to the emotive demands of the Never Trump mob. She instead opted to stick
to the traditional progressive position on undeclared war, even if it meant siding with the president.
... ... ...
Jack Hunter is the former political editor of Rare.us and co-authored the 2011 book The Tea Party Goes to Washington with
Senator Rand Paul.
The antiwar movement is not a "liberal" movement. Hundreds of mainly your people addressed the San Francisco board of supervisors
asking them to condemn an Israeli full-fledged attack on Gaza. When they were finished, without objection from one single supervisor,
the issued was tabled and let sink permanently in the Bay, never to be heard of again. Had the situation been reversed and Israel
under attack there most probably would have been a resolution in nanoseconds. Maybe even half the board volunteering to join the
IDF? People believed Trump would act more objectively. That is why he got a lot of peace votes. What AIPAC wants there is a high
probability our liberal politicians will oblige quickly and willingly. Who really represents America remains a mystery?
"That abiding hatred will continue to play an outsized and often illogical role in determining what most Democrats believe about
foreign policy."
True, but the prowar tendency with mainstream liberals ( think Clintonites) is older than that. The antiwar movement among
mainstream liberals died the instant Obama entered the White House. And even before that Clinton and Kerry and others supported
the Iraq War. I think this goes all the way back to Gulf War I, and possibly further. Democrats were still mostly antiwar to some
degree after Vietnam and they also opposed Reagan's proxy wars in Central America and Angola. Some opposed the Gulf War, but it
seemed a big success at the time and so it became centrist and smart to kick the Vietnam War syndrome and be prowar. Bill Clinton
has his little war in Serbia, which was seen as a success and so being prowar became the centrist Dem position. Obama was careful
to say he wasn't antiwar, just against dumb wars. Gore opposed going into Iraq, but on technocratic grounds.
And in popular culture, in the West Wing the liberal fantasy President was bombing an imaginary Mideast terrorist country.
Showed he was a tough guy, but measured, unlike some of the even more warlike fictitious Republicans in that show. I remember
Toby Ziegler, one of the main characters, ranting to his pro diplomacy wife that we needed to go in and civilize those crazy Muslims.
So it isn't just an illogical overreaction to Trump, though that is part of it.
Won't happen. Gabbard is solid and sincere but she's not Hillary so she won't be the candidate. Hillary is the candidate forever.
If Hillary is too drunk to stand up, or too obviously dead, Kamala will serve as Hillary's regent.
The problem isn't THAT Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria. The problem is HOW Trump is pulling the troops out of Syria.
The Left isn't fighting about 'keeping troops indefinitely in Syria' vs pulling troops out of Syria'. Its a fight over 'pulling
troops out in a way that makes it so that we don't have to go back in like Obama and Iraq' vs 'backing the reckless pull out Trump
is going to do'.
For Democrats, everything depends on what the polls say, which issues seem important to get elected. They will say anything,
no matter how irrational & outrageously insane if the polls say Democrat voters like them. If American involvement in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan are less important according to the polls, Democratic 2020 hopefuls will not bother to focus on it.
For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is morally
right, & what is morally evil.
"I am glad Donald Trump is withdrawing troops from Syria. Congress never authorized the intervention."
Bravo Congressman Khanna. And to those progs who share his sympathies with those of us who have consistently opposed US
military adventurism. Howard Dean's comments that American troops should take a bullet in support of "women's rights" in Afghanistan
(!) only underscores why he serves as comic relief and really should consider wearing tassels and bells.
Kasoy: "For True Christian conservatives, everything depends on how issues line up to God's laws. Polls do not change what is
morally right, & what is morally evil."
I think that needs the trademark symbol, i.e True Christians™
The Second Coming of Jack Hunter. Given his well-documented views on race, it's no surprise he's all in on Trump. That surely
outweighs Trump's massive spending and corruption that most true libertarians oppose.
Trump – and Bernie – put their fingers on the electoral zeitgeist in 2016: the oligarchy is out of control, its servants in
Washington have turned their backs on the middle class, and we need to stop getting into stupid, needless wars.
Of course, the left would come out against puppies and sunshine if Trump came out for those things.
But if they are smart, they'd recognize that on war, or his lack of interest in starting new wars, even the broken Trump clock
has been right twice a day.
The flip side of this phenomenon is that so many Republican voters supported Trump's withdrawal from Syria. Had it been Obama
withdrawing the troops, I suspect 80-90% of Republicans would have opposed the withdrawal.
This does show that Republicans are listening to Trump more than Lindsey Graham or Marco Rubio on foreign policy. But once
Trump leaves office, I fear the party will swing back towards the neocons.
"Principles", LOL? What principles? When have Democrats ever not campaigned on a "bring them home, no torture, etc" peace
platform and then governed on a deep state neocon foreign policy, with entitlements to drone anyone on earth in Obama's case?
At least horrible neocon Republicans are honest enough to say what they believe when they run.
Dopey Trump campaigned on something different and has now surrounded himself with GOP hawks, probably because he's lazy and
doesn't know any better.
Bernie, much like Ron Paul was, 180 degrees away, is the only one who might do different if he got into office, and the rate
the left is going he may very well be the nominee.
Hillary was full hawk. It was Trump who said he was less hawkish. Yeah, he hasn't lived up to that either. But Democrats can't
go hawkish in response. They already were the hawks.
The least bad comment on Democrats is that everyone in DC is a hawk, not just them.
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.
Readers may enjoy picking through the bafflegab, because I think you could drive a whole
fleet of trucks through the loopholes. Here, for example, is Benjamin
Studebaker's view : "A Second Term for Trump is Better Than Beto."
Nobody, after all, said that success had to be immediate ; perhaps a short term
failure improves the ultimate welfare and prospects for success for the party.
In a way, this McCarthy-ite armraising is a kludge, another symptom of a fraying system:
Exactly as we can no longer, apparently, trust voters to pick a President, and so must give
veto power to the intelligence community, so we can no longer trust primary voters to pick a
candidate, and the "National Chairperson" must step in if they somehow get the wrong answer.
Pesky voters!
Tulsi Gabbard is a really next-level politician. Any amateur can be a traditional US racist
politician, but it takes skill to succeed in America as a Hindu-nationalist racist / tankie
Assad apologist.
"... You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. ..."
"... Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means. ..."
"... Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI, and within the entire Democrat Party. ..."
"... Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western world. ..."
"... Stephen Cohen discusses how rational viewpoints are banned from the mainstream media, and how several features of US life today resemble some of the worst features of the Soviet system. https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/02/12/stephen-cohen-on-war-with-russia-and-soviet-style-censorship-in-the-us/ ..."
"... The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly 4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course. ..."
"... Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically justified by its diabolical policies. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their Government Lackeys. ..."
"... It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it to be so ..."
"... If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation, propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention. ..."
"... See also this primer on Mueller's MO. ..."
"... The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to increase military spending; and more, more, more war. ..."
"... Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished. a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians. ..."
"... At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already brainwashed population? ..."
"... The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. ..."
"... Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others, the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry. ..."
For more than two years U.S. politicians, the media and some bloggers hyped a conspiracy theory. They claimed that Russia had
somehow colluded with the Trump campaign to get him elected.
An obviously fake 'Dirty Dossier' about Trump, commissioned by the Clinton campaign, was presented as evidence. Regular business
contacts between Trump flunkies and people in Ukraine or Russia were claimed to be proof for nefarious deals. A Russian
click-bait company was accused of manipulating the U.S. electorate by posting puppy pictures and crazy memes on social media.
Huge investigations were launched. Every rumor or irrelevant detail coming from them was declared to be - finally - the evidence
that would put Trump into the slammer. Every month the walls were closing in on Trump.
Finally the conspiracy theory has run out of steam. Russiagate
is finished :
After two years and 200 interviews, the Senate Intelligence Committee is approaching the end of its investigation into the 2016
election, having uncovered no direct evidence of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia, according to both Democrats
and Republicans on the committee.
...
Democrats and other Trump opponents have long believed that special counsel Robert Mueller and Congressional investigators would
unearth new and more explosive evidence of Trump campaign coordination with Russians. Mueller may yet do so, although Justice
Department and Congressional sources say they believe that he, too, is close to wrapping up his investigation.
Nothing, zero, nada was found to support the conspiracy theory. The Trump campaign did not collude with Russia. A few flunkies
were indicted for unrelated tax issues and for lying to the investigators about some minor details. But nothing at all supports the
dramatic claims of collusion made since the beginning of the affair.
In a recent statement House leader Nancy Pelosi was reduced
to accuse Trump campaign officials of doing their job:
"The indictment of Roger Stone makes clear that there was a deliberate, coordinated attempt by top Trump campaign officials to
influence the 2016 election and subvert the will of the American people. ...
No one called her out for spouting such nonsense.
Russiagate created a lot of damage.
The alleged Russian influence campaign that never happened was used to
install censorship on social media. It was used
to undermine the election of progressive Democrats. The weapon salesmen used it to push for more NATO aggression against Russia.
Maria Butina, an innocent Russian woman interested in good relation with the United States, was
held in solitary confinement
(recommended) until she signed a paper which claims that she was involved in a conspiracy.
In a just world the people who for more then two years hyped the conspiracy theory and caused so much damage would be pushed out
of their public positions. Unfortunately that is not going to happen. They will jump onto the next conspiracy train continue from
there.
Posted by b on February 12, 2019 at 01:38 PM |
Permalink
Comments next
page " Legally, Maria Butina was suborned into signing a false declaration. If there were the rule of law, such party or
parties that suborned her would be in gaol. Considering Mueller's involvement with Lockerbie, I am not holding my breath. FWIW the
Swiss company that made the timers allegedly involved in Lockerbie have some
comments of its own .
I will be really glad when this 'get Russia' craziness is over, but I suspect even if the Mueller investigation has nothing,
all the same creeps will be pulling out the stops to generate something... Skripal, Integrity Initiative, and etc. etc. stuff
like this just doesn't go away overnight or with the end of this 'investigation'... folks are looking for red meat i tell ya!
as for Maria Butina - i look forward to reading the article.. that was a travesty of justice but the machine moves on, mowing
down anyone in it's way... she was on the receiving end of all the paranoia that i have come to associate with the western msm
at this point...
Hillary's loss is actually best explained as her throwing the election to Trump . The Deep State wanted a nationalist
to win as that would best help meet the challenge from Russia and China - a challenge that they had been slow to recognize.
= ... to smear Wikileaks as a Russian agent
The DNC leak is best explained as a CIA false flag.
= ... to remove and smear Michael Flynn
Trump said that he fired Flynn for lying to VP Pence but Flynn's conversations with the Russian Ambassador after Obama threw
them out for "meddling" in the US election was an embarrassment to the Administration as Putin's Putin's decision not to respond
was portrayed as favoritism toward the Trump Administration.
You can take this to the bank. Hardcore Russiagaters will never give up their belief in collusion and Russian influence in
the 2016 campaign -- never. Congress and Mueller will be accused of engaging in a coverup. This is typical behavior for conspiracy
theorists.
I hope that Russiagate is indeed "finished", but I think it needs to be draped with garlic-clove necklaces, shot up with silver
bullets, sprinkled with holy water, and a wooden stake driven through its black heart just to make sure.
I don't dispute the logical argument B. presents, but it may be too dispassionately rational. I know that the Russiagate
proponents and enthralled supporters of the concept are too invested psychologically in this surrealistic fantasy to let go, even
if the official outcome reluctantly admits that there's no "there" there.
The Democratic Party, one of the major partners mounting the Russophobic psy-op, has already resolved to turn Democratic committee
chairmen loose to dog the Trump administration with hearings aggressively flogging any and all matters that discredit and undermine
Trump-- his business connections, social liaisons, etc.
They may hope to find the Holy Grail: the elusive "bombshell" that "demands" impeachment, i.e., some crime or illicit conduct
so heinous that the public will stand for another farcical impeachment proceeding. But I reckon that the Dems prefer the "soft"
impeachment of harassing Trump with hostile hearings in hopes of destroying his 2020 electability with the death of a thousand
innuendoes and guilt-by-association.
Thus, even if the Mueller report is underwhelming, I think that the Democrats and TDS-saturated Trump opponents will attempt
to rehabilitate it by pretending that it contains important loose ends that need to be pursued. In other words, to perpetuate
the Mueller-driven political Russophobia by all other available means.
Put more succinctly, I fear that Russiagate won't be finished until Rachel Maddow says it's finished. ;)
Once a hypothesis is fixed in people's minds, whether true or not, it's hard to get them to let go of it. And let's not forget
how many times the narrative changed (and this is true in the Skripal case as well), with all past facts vanishing to accommodate
a new narrative.
So I, like others, expect the fake scandal to continue while many, many other real crimes (the US attempted
coup in Venezuela and the genocidal war in Yemen, for instance) continue unabated.
Putin solicits public input for essential national
policy goals . If ever there was a template to follow for an actual MAGAgenda, Putin's Russia provides one. While US politicos
argue over what is essentially Bantha Pudu, Russians are hard at work improving their nation which includes restructuring their
economy.
Russiagate has exposed the great degree of corruption within the Justice Department bureaucracy, particularly within FBI,
and within the entire Democrat Party.
I very much doubt it it is over. Trump is corrupt and has links to corrupt Russians. Collusion, maybe not, but several
stinking individuals are in the frame for, guess what - ...bring it on... The fact that Hilary was arguably even worse (a point
made ad-nauseum on here) is frankly irrelevant. The vilification of Trump will not affect the warmongers efforts. He is a useful
idiot
for a take on the alternative reality some are living in
emptywheel has an article up on the nbc link b provides and the article on butina is discussed in the comments section...
as i said - they are looking for red meat and will not be happy until they get some... they are completely zonkers...
Blooming Barricade , Feb 12, 2019 2:55:18 PM |
link
Now that this racket has been admitted as such, I expect all of the media outlets that devoted banner headlines, hundreds of thousands
of hours of cable TV time, thousands of trees, and free speech online to immediately fire all of their journalists and appoint
Glenn Greenwald as the publisher of the New York Times, Michael Tracey at the Post, Aaron Matte at the Guardian, and Max Blumenthal
at the Daily Beast.
Since this is obviously not going to be allowed to happen, and since these people get away with everything, expect this
to never end, despite all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter if they've been exposed as CIA propagandists or Integrity
Initiative stooges, the game goes on...and on.... the job security of these disgraced columnists is the greatest in the Western
world.
The US needs an enemy, how else can they ask NATO members to cough up 2% of GDP [just for one example Germany's GDP is nearly
4 Trillion dollars [2017] for defence spending, what a crazy sum all NATO members must fork out to please the US, but then most
of that money must be spent on the US MIC 'interoperability' of course.
Then of course Russia has to be surrounded by NATO should they try and take over Europe by surging through the Fulda gap./s
Then of course there are the professional pundits who have built careers on anti Russian propaganda, Rachel Maddow for instance
who earns 30,000$ per day to spew anti Russian nonsense.
Another great damage of Russiagate was the instigating of a nuclear arms race directed primarily at Russia, and ideologically
justified by its diabolical policies.
I'm sorry b is so down on Conspiracy Theories, since they reveal quite real staged homicidal false flag operations of US power.
Feeding into the stigmatizing of the truth about reality is not in the interests of the earth's people.
somehow I see this "revelation: tied to Barr's approaching tenure. I think they (FBI/DOJ) didn't want his involvement in their
noodle soup of an investigation and the best way to accomplish that was to end it themselves. I also suspect that a deal has been
made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone.
So we will see no investigation of Hillary, her 650,000
emails or the many crimes they detailed (according to NYPD investigation of Weiner's laptop) and the US will continue to be at
war all day, every day. Team Swamp rules.
Meanwhile, MSM is prepping its readers for the possibility that the Mueller report will never be released to us proles. If that's
the case, I'm sure nobody will try to use innuendo to suggest it actually contains explosive revelations after all...
Harry, its vitally important as the US desperately wants to keep Europe under its thumb and to stop this European army which
means Europe lead by Paris and Berlin becomes a world power. Trump's attempts to make nice with Russia is to keep it out of the
EU bloc.
Well, the liberal conspiracy car crash ensured downmarket Mussolini a second term, it appears...Hard Brexit Tories also look likely
to win thanks to centrist sabatoge of the left. You reap what you sow, corporate presstitutes!
Sane people have predicted the end of Russiagate almost as many times as insane people have predicted that the "smoking gun that
will get rid of Trump" has been found. And yet the Mighty Wurlitzer grinds on, while social media is more and more censored.
I expect it all to continue until the 2020 election circus winds up into full-throated mode, and no one talks about anything but
the next puppet to be appointed. Oops, I mean "elected".
You also need to behead the corpse, stuff the mouth with a lemon and then place the head down in the coffin with the body in
supine (facing up) position. Weight the coffin with stones and wild roses and toss it into a fast-flowing river.
Russiagate won't be finished until a wall is built around Capitol Hill and all its inhabitants and worker bees declared insane
by a properly functioning court of law.
I also suspect that a deal has been made with Trump, possibly in exchange for leaving his family alone. So we will see no
investigation of Hillary ...
Underlying your perspective is the assumption that USA is a democracy where a populist "outsider" could be elected President,
Yet you also believe that Hillary and the Deep State have the power to manipulate government and the intelligence agencies and
propose a "conspiracy theory" based on that power.
Isn't it more likely that Trump made it clear (behind closed doors, of course) that he was amenable to the goals of the Deep
State and that the bogus investigation was merely done to: 1) cover their own election meddling; 2) eliminate threats like Flynn
and Assange/Wikileaks; 3) anti-Russian propaganda?
Dowd, Trump's former lawyer on Russiagate stated there may not even be a report. If this is the case then the Zionist rulers have
gotten to Mueller who no doubt figured out that the election collusion breadcrumbs don't lead to Putin, they lead to Netanyahu
and Zionist billionaire friends! So Mueller may have to come up with a nothing burger to hide the truth.
B is the only alternative media blogger I've followed for a significant amount of time without becoming disenfranchised. Not because
he has no blind spot - his is just one I can deal with... optimism.
I will believe Russiagate is finished when expelled Russian staff gets back, when the US returns the seized Russian properties,
when the consulate is Seattle reopens and when USA issues formal apology to Russia.
Posted by: hopehely | Feb 12, 2019 5:14:49 PM |
link
Nobody has ever advanced the tiniest shred of credible evidence that 'Russia' or its government at any level was in any way implicated
either in Wikileaks' acquisition of the DNC and Podesta emails or in any form of interference with the Presidential election.
This has been going on for three years and not once has anything like evidence surfaced.
On the other hand there has been an abundance of evidence that those alleging Russian involvement consistently refused to listen
to explore the facts.
Incredibly, the DNC computers were never examined by the FBI or any other agency resembling an official police agency. Instead
the notorious Crowdstrike professionally russophobic and caught red handed faking data for the Ukrainians against Russia were
commissioned to produce a 'report.'
Nobody with any sense would have credited anything about Russiagate after that happened.
Thgen there was the proof, from VIPS and Bill Binney (?) that the computers were not hacked at all but that the information
was taken by thumbdrive. A theory which not only Wikileaks but several witnesses have offered to prove.
Not one of them has been contacted by the FBI, Mueller or anyone else "investigating."
In reality the charges from the first were ludicrous on their face. There is, as b has proved and every new day's news attests,
not the slightest reason why anyone in the Russian government should have preferred Trump over Clinton. And that is saying something
because they are pretty well indistinguishable. And neither has the morals or brains of an adolescent groundhog.
Russiagate is over, alright, The Nothingburger is empty. But that means nothing in this 'civilisation': it will be recorded
in the history books, still to be written, by historians still in diapers, that "The 2016 Presidential election, which ended in
the controversial defeat of Hillary Clinton, was heavily influenced by Russian agents who hacked ..etc etc"
What will not be remembered is that every single email released was authentic. And that within those troves of correspondence
there was enough evidence of criminality by Clinton and her campaign to fill a prison camp.
Another thing that will not be recalled is that there was once a young enthusiastic man, working for the DNC, who was mugged
one evening after work and killed.
The 'no collusion' result will only spur the 'beginning of the end' baboons to shout even more, they'll never stop until they
die in their beds or the plebs of the Republic made them adore the street lamp posts, you'll see. The former is by far more likely,
the unwashed of American have never had a penchant for foreign affairs except for the few spasms like Vietnam.
There was collusion alright but the only Russians who helped Trump get elected and were in on the collusion are citizens of ISRAEL
FIRST, likewise for the American billionaires who put Trump in the power perch. ISRAEL FIRST.
That's why Trump is on giant billboards in Israel shaking hands with the Yahoo. Trump is higher in the polls in Israel than
in the U.S. If it weren't that the Zionist upper crust need Trump doing their dirty work in America, like trying today get rid
of Rep. Omar Ilhan, then Trump would win the elections in Ziolandia or Ziostan by a landslide cause he's been better for the Joowish
state than all preceding Presidents put together. Mazel tov to them bullshet for the rest of us servile mass in the vassal West
and Palestinians the most shafted class ever. Down with Venezuela and Iran, up with oil and gas. The billionare shysters' and
Trump's payola is getting closer. Onward AZ Empire!
He proved himself so easy to troll during the election. It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all
along was to get him elected and have a candidate they could manipulate.
At least Germany has the good sense not to throw taxpayer money at the F-35.
German F-35 decision sacrifices NATO capability for Franco-German industrial cooperation I don't know what they have
in mind with a proposed airplane purchase. If they need fighters, buy or lease Sweden's Gripen. If attack airplanes are what they're
after, go to Boeing and get some brand new F-15X models. If the prickly French are agreeable to build a 6th generation aircraft,
that would be worth a try.
Regarding Rachel Maddow, I recently had an encounter with a relative who told me 1) I visited too many oddball sites and 2)
he considered Rachel M. to be the most reliable news person in existence. I think we're talking "true believer" here. :)
It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate
they could manipulate.
Considering how those "intelligence agencies" are hard pressed to find their own tails, even if you allow them to use both
hands, it would surprise me.
That Trump would turn out to be a tub of jello in more than just a physical way has been a surprise to an awful lot of us.
Russiagate was very successful. You just have to understand the objectives. It was a great distraction. Diverting
peoples attention from the continued fleecing of the "real people" which are the bottom 90% by the "Corporate People" and their
Government Lackeys.
It provided an excuse for the acting CEO (a figurehead) of the Corporate Empire to go back on many of the promises made
that got him elected, and to fill the swamp with Neocon and Koch Brother creatures with the excuse the Deep State made him do
it. More proof that there is no deception that is too ridiculous to be believed so long as you have enough pundits claiming it
to be so
Allowed the bipartisan support for the clamp down on alt media with censorship by social media (Deep State Tools) and funded
by the Ministry of Truth set up by Obama in his last days in office to under the false pretense of protecting us from foreign
governments interference in elections (except Israel of course) . Similar agencies have been set up or planned to be in other
countries followig the US example such as UK, France, Russia, etc.
Did anyone really expect Mr "Cover It Up " Mueller to find anything? Mueller is Deep State all the way and Trump is as well,
not withstanding the "Fake Wrestling " drama that they are bitter enemies. All the surveillance done over the past 2-3 decades
would have so much dirt on the Trumpet they could silence him forever . Trump knew that going in and I sometimes wonder if he
was pressured to run as a condition to avoid prosecution. Pretty sure every President since Carter has been "Kompromat"
If you've done just a cursory look into Seth Rich, you'd be very suspicious about the story of his life and death. IMO
Assange/Wikilleaks were set up. And Flynn was set up too. What they are doing is Orwellian: White Helmets, election manipulation,
propaganda, McCarthism, etc. If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
Russians and likely at the behest of the Russian state interfered and it was fair payback for Yeltsin's election. It is time to
move on but not in feigned ignorance of what was done. Was it "outcome" affecting, possibly, but not clearly and if the US electoral
college and electoral system generally is so decrepit that a second level power in the world can influence then its the US's fault.
It's not like the 2000 election wasn't a warning shot about the rottenness of system and a system that doesn't understand a
warning shot deserves pretty much what it gets. But there's enough non-hype evidence of acts and intent to say yes, the Russians
tried and may have succeeded. They certainly are acting guilty enough. but still close the book move and move on to Trump's 'real'
crimes which were done without a Russian assist.
I seem to recall former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan Craig Murray saying that it was not a hack and that he had been handed
a thumb drive in a field near American University by a disgruntled Democrat whistleblower. Further, I seem to recall William Binney,
former NSA Technical Leader for intelligence, conducting an experiment to show that internet speeds at the time would not allow
the information to be hacked - they knew the size of the files and the period over which they were downloaded. Plus, Seth Rich.
So why does anyone even believe it was a hack, @32 THN?
Just another comment re Mueller. There is a great documentary by (Dutch, not Israeli---different person) Gideon Levy, Lockerbie
Revisited. The narration is in Dutch, but the interviews are in English, and there is a small segment of a German broadcast. The
documentary ends abruptly where one set of FBI personnel contradict statements by another set of FBI personnel. See also
this primer on Mueller's MO.
reply to Les 42
"It wouldn't surprise me if aim of the domestic intelligence agencies all along was to get him elected and have a candidate they
could manipulate."
Not the intelligence agencies, the Military IMO. They knew HC for what she was; horrifically corrupt and,again IMO,they know
she is insane.
They saw and I think still see Trump as someone they could work with, remember Rogers (Navy) of the NSA going to him immediately
once he was elected? That was the Military protecting him as best they could.
They IMO have kept him alive and as long as he doesn't send any troops into "real" wars, they will keep on keeping him alive.
This doesn't mean Trump hasn't gone over to the Dark Side, just that no military action will take place that the military command
doesn't fully support.
Again, I could be wrong, he could be backed by fiends from Patagonia for all I really know:)
The button pushers behind the Trump collusion and Russia election hacking false narratives got what they wanted: to walk the
democrats and republicans straight into Cold War v2; to start their campaign to suppress alternative voices on the internet; to
increase military spending; and more, more, more war.
Boy, I hope Jackrabbit sees this. Everyone knows I believe Trump is the anointed chosen of the Zionist 1%. There was no Russia
collusion; it was Zionist collusion with a Russian twist...
Oh yeah! Forgot to mention the latest. Trump is asking Kim to provide a list of his nuclear scientists! Before Kim acts on this
request, he should call up the Iranian government for advise 'cause they have lots of experience and can warn Kim of what will
happen to each of those scientists. They'll be put on a kill-list and will be extrajudicially wacked as in executed. Can you believe
the chutzpah? Trump must think Kim is really stupid to fall for that one!
Aye! The thought of six more years of Zionist pandering Trump. Barf-inducing prospect is too tame.
The view from the hermitage is, we are in the age of distractions. Russiagate will be replaced with one of a litany of distractions,
purely designed to keep us off target. The target being, corruption, vote rigging, illegal wars, war crimes, overthrowing sovereign
governments, and political assasinations, both at home and abroad. Those so distracted, will focus on sillyness; not the genuine
danger afoot around the planet. Get used to it; it's become the new normal.
@76Hw
I have yet to read anything more delusional, nay, utterly preposterous. Methinks you over-project too much. Even Trump would have
a belly-ache laugh reading that sheeple spiel. You're the type that sees the giant billboard of Zionist Trump and Yahoo shaking
hands and drones on and on that our lying eyes deceive us and it's really Trump playing 4-D chess. I suppose when he tried to
pressure Omar Ilhan into resigning her seat in Congress yesterday, that too was reverse psychology?
Trump instagramed the billboard pic, he tweeted it, he probably pasted it on his wall; maybe with your kind of wacky, Trump
infatuation, you should too!
Russiagate is finished because Mueller discovered an embarrassing fact: The collusion was and always will be with Israel. Here's
Trump professing his endless love for Zionism:
Trump Resign
Russiagate was very successful <=pls read, re-read Pft @ 46.. he listed many things. divide and conquer accomplished.
a nation state is defined as an armed rule making structure, designed by those who control a territory, and constructed by the
lawyers, military, and wealthy and run by the persons the designers appoint, for the appointed are called politicians.
Most designs of armed nation states provide the designers with information feedback and the designers use that information
to appoint more obedient politicians and generals to run things, and to improve the design to better serve the designers. The
armed rule making structure is designed to give the designers complete control over those targeted to be the governed. Why so
stupid the governed? ; always they allow themselves to be manipulated like sheep.
When 10 angry folks approach you with two pieces of ropes: one to throw over the tree branch under which your horse will be
supporting you while they tie the noose around your neck and the other shorter piece of rope to tie your hands behind ..your back
you need at that point to make your words count , if five of the people are black and five are white. all you need do is
say how smart the blacks are, and how stupid the whites are, as the two groups fight each other you manage your escape. democrat
vs republican= divide to conquer. gun, no gun = divide to conquer, HRC vs DJT = divide to conquer, abortion, no abortion = divide
to conquer, Trump is a Russian planted in a high level USA position of power = divide to conquer, They were all in on it together,,
Muller was in the white house to keep the media supplied with XXX, to keep the law enforcement agencies in the loop, and to advise
trump so things would not get out of hand ( its called Manipulation and the adherents to the economic system called Zionism
For the record, Zionism is not related to race, religion or intelligence. Zionism is a system of economics that take's no captives,
its adherents must own everything, must destroy and decimate all actual or imaginary competition, for Zionist are the owners and
masters of everything? Zionism is about power, absolute power, monopoly ownership and using governments everywhere to abuse the
governed. Zionism has many adherents, whites, blacks, browns, Christians, Jews, Islamist, Indians, you name it among each class
of person and walk of life can be found persons who subscribe to the idea that they, and only they, should own everything, and
when those of us, that are content to be the governed let them, before the kill and murder us, they usually end up owning everything.
1. why the Joint non nuclear agreement with Iran and the other nuclear power nations, that prevented Iran from developing nuclear
weapons, was trashed? Someone needs to be able to say Iran is developing ..., at the right time.
2. Why Netanyohu made public a video that claimed Iran was developing nuclear stuff in violation of the Iran non nuclear agreement,
and everybody laughed,
3. Why the nuclear non proliferation agreement with Russia, that terminated the costly useless arms race a decade ago, has
been recently terminated, to reestablish the nuclear arms race, no apparent reason was given the implication might be Russia could
be a target, but
4. why it might make sense to give nukes to Saudi Arabia or some other rogue nation, and
5. why no one is allowed to have nuclear weapons except the Zionist owned and controlled nation states.
Statement: Zionism is an economic system that requires the elimination of all competition of whatever kind. It is a winner
get's all, takes no prisoners, targets all who would threaten or be a challenge or a threat; does not matter if the threat is
in in oil and gas, technology or weapons as soon as a possibility exist, the principles of Zionism would require that it be taken
out, decimated, and destroyed and made where never again it could even remotely be a threat to the Empire, that Zionism demands..
Hypothesis: A claim that another is developing nuclear weapon capabilities is sufficient to take that other out?
I am glad that most commenters understand that Russiagate will not go away. But the majority appear to miss the real reason. Russiagate
is not an accusation, it is the state of mind.
At the beginnng of Russiagate, I wrote on Robert Parry's Consirtium News that Russiagate is Idiocracy piggy-backing on
decades and literally billions of dollars of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda. How hard would it be to brainwash an already
brainwashed population?
The purveyors of Russiagate will re-compose themselves, brush off all reports and continue on. One just cannot get away
from one's nature, even when that nature is pure idiocy. Of course, the most ironic in the affair is that it is the so called
US "intellectuals", academics and other assorted cretins who are the most fervent proponents. If you were wondering how Russia
can make such amazing defensive weapons that US can only deny exist and wet dream of having, there is your answer. It is the state
of mind. The whole of US establishment are legends in their on lunch time and totally delusional about the reality surrounding
them - both Russiagate and MAGA cretins, no report can help the Russiagate nation.
Finally, I am thinking of that crazy and ugly professor bitch from the British Cambridge University who gives her lectures
naked to protest something or other. I am so lucky that I do not have to go to a Western university ever again. What a catastrophic
decline! No Brexit can help the Skripal nation.
Russiagate is finished, but is DJT also among the rubble?
Hardly any money for the border wall and still lingering in the ME?
If Hoarsewhisperer proves to be correct above re: DJT, he will really have to knock our socks off before election 2020. To
do this he will have to unequivocally and unceremoniously withdraw from the MENA and Afghanistan and possibly declare a National
Emergency for more money for the wall.
The problem is, when he does this, he will look impulsively dangerous and this may harm his mystique to the lemmings who need
a president to be more "presidential."
My money is on status quo all the way to 2020 and the rethugz hoping the Dems will eat their own in an orgy of warring identities.
The collusion story may be faltering, but the blame for Russia poisoning the Skripals lives on. The other night on The News Hour,
"Judy" led off the program with this: "It has been almost a year since Kremlin intelligence officers attempted to kill a Russian
defector in the British city of Salisbury by poisoning him with a nerve agent. That attack, and the subsequent death of a British
woman, scared away tourists and shoppers, but authorities and residents are working to get the town's economy back on track. Special
correspondent Malcolm Brabant reports."
Russiagate will not go away unfortunately because it has evolved in the "Russiagate Industry". As mentioned by others,
the Russiagate Industry has been very profitable for many industries and people. Russiagate has generated an entire cottage industry
of companies around censorship and "find us a Russian". Dow Jones should have an index on the Russiagate Industry.
Here is one recent example. You know the measles outbreak in the US Pacific Northwest. Yup, the Russians. How do we know.
A government funded research grant. The study found that 899 tweets caused people to doubt vaccines. Looks like money is
to be had even by academics for the right results.
'We have a system that is fundamentally broken.' -- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is
explaining just how f*cked campaign finance laws really are.
" Subscribe to NowThis:
http://go.nowth.is/News_Subscribe
In the latest liberal news and political news, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez made
headlines at a recent congressional hearing on money in politics by explaining and inquiring
about political corruption. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, aka AOC, went into the issues of
lobbyists and Super PACs and how the political establishment, including Donald Trump, uses big
money to their advantage, to hide and obfuscate, and push crooked agendas. Alexandria Ocasio
Cortez is a rising star in the Democratic Party and House of Representatives.
NowThis is your premier news outlet providing you with all the videos you need to stay up to
date on all the latest in trending news. From entertainment to politics, to viral videos and
breaking news stories, we're delivering all you need to know straight to your social feeds. We
live where you live.
Love this feisty congresswoman. I can see why AOC is dislike by the right and even many
democrats. She's in DC to work for the American ppl and not enrich herself or special
interest. Love the 2018 class and hope they make changes and clean up DC.
AOC is amazing, pointing out all the fundamental wrongs in our political system. I hope
she stays in Congress as long as possible to spread her influence.
AOC is speaking out when no one else will about the corruption in Washington. She is
disliked because she is actually fighting for people. This makes me want to move to New York
just so I can vote for her. Keep it up the pressure.
She is going to be needing extra security. She's poised to take them down and we know how
these things have been handled in the past. I'm loving her fearlessness but worry for her
safety. May she be protected and blessed. SMIB
"... Voters by the millions dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the 1990s. ..."
If last year's election showed us anything, it's that anger and resentment are on the rise.
I hear it from small business owners and working-class families, from millennials and retirees.
There's a sense that we've lost our way, and that the blame rests squarely on our nation's
leadership. Simply put, Americans are sick of being patronized and sick of the same old ideas
that we, as Democrats, are going to keep offering them over and over and over again.
The frustration is palpable. People are fed up with the status quo. Citizens from all walks
of life are sitting around their dinner tables, talking about how they've had it with all the
usual proposals that, once more, we will be repackaging and spoon-feeding to them in a way
that's entirely transparent and frankly condescending.
That's something every American can count on.
It's no wonder voters are furious. Politics-as-usual has failed them, and they desperately
want change that the Democratic Party has no plan to bring about in any meaningful way. But let
me assure you, when our constituents tell us they've had enough broken promises, when they say
our actions haven't addressed their needs, we listen. We hear your concerns -- hear them loud
and clear -- then immediately discard them and revert back to the exact same ineffectual
strategies we've been rallying behind for years.
It doesn't take a genius to see what the polls are telling us. Voters by the millions
dislike our cozying up to Wall Street, our hopelessly out-of-touch elitism, our support for
never-ending military entanglements, our blindness to the plight of rural communities decimated
by globalization, and our failure to expand opportunities for American workers. So what are we
going to do about it? Well, after taking all this into account, after taking a good hard look
at ourselves and doing some serious soul-searching, I'm pleased to announce that .... Democrats
will continue to run on the same set of platitudes we've been trotting out since at least the
1990s.
Taming of financial oligarchy and restoration of the job market at the expense of outsourcing and offshoring is required in the
USA and gradually getting support. At least a return to key elements of the New Deal should be in the cards. But Clinton wing of Dems
is beong redemption. They are Wall Street puddles. all of the them.
Issues like Medicare for All, Free College, Restoring Glass Steagall, Ending Citizen's United/Campaign finance reform, federal jobs
guarantee, criminal justice reform, all poll extremely well among the american populace
If even such a neoliberal pro globalization, corporations controlled media source as Guardian views centrist neoliberal Democrats
like Booker unelectable, the situation in the next elections might be interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin ..."
"... 2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy. ..."
In their rhetoric and policy advocacy, this trio has been steadily moving to the left to keep pace with a leftward-moving Democratic
party. Booker ,
Harris and Gillibrand know that voters demand action and are more supportive than ever of Medicare for All and universal childcare.
Gillibrand, long considered a moderate, has even gone as far as to endorse abolishing US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice)
and, along with Cory Booker, Bernie Sanders' single-payer healthcare bill. Harris has also backed universal healthcare and free college
tuition for most Americans.
But outward appearances aren't everything. Booker, Harris and Gillibrand have been making a very different pitch of late -- on
Wall Street. According to
CNBC , all three potential candidates have been reaching out to financial executives lately, including Blackstone's Jonathan
Gray, Robert Wolf from 32 Advisors and the Centerbridge Partners founder Mark Gallogly.
Wall Street, after all, played an important role getting the senators where they are today. During his 2014 Senate run, in which
just 7% of his contributions came from small donors, Booker raised $2.2m from the securities and investment industry. Harris and
Gillibrand weren't far behind in 2018, and even the progressive Democrat Sherrod Brown has solicited donations from Gallogly and
other powerful executives.
When CNBC's story about
Gillibrand personally working the phones to woo Wall Street executives came out, her team responded defensively, noting her support
for financial regulation and promising that if she did run she would take "no corporate Pac money". But what's most telling isn't
that Gillibrand and others want Wall Street's money, it's that they want the blessings of financial CEOs. Even if she doesn't take
their contributions, she's signaling that she's just playing politics with populist rhetoric. That will allow capitalists to focus
their attention on candidates such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who have shown a real willingness to abandon the traditional
coziness of the Democratic party with the finance, insurance and real estate industries.
Gillibrand and others are behaving perfectly rationally. The last presidential election cost $6.6bn -- advertising, staff and
conventions are expensive. But even more important than that, they know that while leftwing stances might help win Democratic primaries,
the path of least resistance in the general election is capitulation to the big forces of capital that run this country. Those elites
might allow some progressive tinkering on the margins, but nothing that challenges the inequities that keep them wealthy and their
victims weak.
Big business is likely to bet heavily on the Democratic party in 2020, maybe even more so than it did in 2016. In normal circumstances,
the Democratic party is the second-favorite party of capital; with an erratic Trump around, it is often the first.
The American ruling class has a nice hustle going with elections. We don't have a labor-backed social democratic party that could
create barriers to avoid capture by monied interests. It's telling that when asked about the former Colorado governor John Hickenlooper's
recent chats with Wall Street political financiers, a staff member told CNBC: "We meet with a wide range of donors with shared values
across sectors."
Plenty of Democratic leaders believe in the neoliberal growth model. Many have gotten personally wealthy off of it. Others think
there is no alternative to allying with finance and then trying to create progressive social policy on the margins. But with sentiments
like that, it doesn't take fake news to convince working-class Americans that
Democrats don't really have their interests at heart.
Of course, the Democratic party isn't a monolith. But the insurgency waged by newly elected representatives such as the democratic
socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Ro Khanna and others is still in its infancy. At this stage, it isn't going to
scare capital away from the Democratic party, it's going to make Wall Street invest more heavily to maintain its stake in it.
Men like Mark Gallogly know who their real enemy is: more than anyone else, the establishment is wary of
Bernie Sanders . It seems likely that he will run
for president, but he's been dismissed as a 2020 frontrunner despite his high favorability rates, name recognition, small-donor fundraising
ability, appeal to independent voters, and his team's experience running a competitive national campaign. As 2019 goes on, that dismissal
will morph into all-out war.
Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats gaining power. It's afraid of the Democrats who will take them on -- and those,
unfortunately, are few and far between.
Bhaskar Sunkara is a Guardian US columnist and the founding editor of Jacobin
Just like universal health care, let's give up, it's too hard, we're not winners, we're not number one or problem solvers
and besides, someone at some time for some reason might get something that someone else might not get regardless if that someone
else needs it. Let's go with the Berners who seem to believe there will never be none so pure enough to become president.
The corporate state does not cast the votes. The public does.
Leaning farther to the left on issues like universal healthcare and foreign wars would be agreeing with the public. Not only
the progressive public, but the GENERAL public. The big money donors are the ONLY force against the Democrats resisting these
things.
2016 has shown that the Democratic party is beyond redemption. When it comes down to the choice of either win with a platform
that may impact the wealth and power of their owners, or losing, they will always choose the latter, and continue as useful (and
well paid) idiots in the charade presented as US democracy.
Bernie's challenge will "morph into all-out war". "Wall Street isn't afraid of corporate Democrats", blah, blah, blah. But we're
going to continue to play along? Why? Oh yeah, Bhaskar Sunkara will have us believe "There is no alternative". Remember TINA?
Give it up, man, just give it up.
One dollar, one vote.
If you want Change, keep it in your pocket.
We can't turn this sinking ship around unless we know what direction it's going. So far, that direction is just delivering money
to private islands.
Democrats have a lot of talk, but they still want to drive the nice cars and sell the same crapft that the Republicans are.
Taxing the rich only works when you worship the rich in the first place.
Election financing is the single root cause for our democracy's failure. Period.
I really don't care too much about the mouthing of progressive platitudes from any 2020 Dem Prez candidate. The only ones that
will be worth voting for are the ones that sign onto Sanders' (or similar) legislation that calls for a Constitutional amendment
that allows federal and state governments to limit campaign contributions.
And past committee votes to prevent amendment legislation from getting to a floor vote - as well as missed co-sponsorship opportunities
- should be interesting history for all the candidates to explain.
Campaign financing is what keeps scum entrenched (because primary challengers can't overcome the streams of bribes from those
wonderful people exercising their 'free speech' "rights" to keep their puppet in govt) and prevents any challenges to the corporate
establishment who serve the same rich masters.
Lol, Social Security, Medicare, unemployement protections, so many of the things you mentioned, and so much more, were from the
PROGRESSIVE New Deal, which managed to implement this slew of changes in 5 years! 5 years! You can't criticize "progressives"
in one sentence and then use their accomplishments to support your argument. Today, the New Deal would be considered too far left
by most so called "pragmatic liberals." I assume you are getting fully behind the proposed "Green New Deal" then, right?
Vintage59 pointed out lots of things people have changed. Here's an exhaustive list of the legislation passed by people
who didn't get elected but were more progressive than the people who did:
There is also a steadily growing list of Democrats who did worse in elections than a hypothetical Democratic candidate had
been projected to do.
The party can either continue being GOP-Lite or it can start winning elections. It can't do both.
Nobody is going to get elected on a far left platform. Not in the USA and not anywhere. That's just a fact. And everybody
is going to need $$$ in the campaign. Of course candidates are going to suck up to Wall street and business in general.
And we would have been a thousand percent better off with HRC in the white house than we are now with the Trumpostor.
We don't need a candidate with far-left platform, we need one that is left-leaning at all. HRC and her next generation of clones
are mild Republicans.
Those who want to push the Democrats to the left in order to win perhaps need to stop talking to each other and talk to
people who live outside of LA and NY. If you stay within your bubble it seems the whole world thinks like you.
How old will Sanders be in 2020?
The people (outside the coasts) lean to the left some big issues. Medicare for all. Foreign wars. etc.
A sane person might ask why in the hell the left-side party is leaning farther to the right than the general public.
Sanders is a dinosaur. If there is a reason for Wall Street to be wary of him then it is that the mentally challenged orange
guy may win another term if the Democrats run with Sanders.
Hopefully, Sanders will understand what many of his supporters do not want to see: At some time age becomes a problem. If
the Democrats decide to move to the left rather than pursuing a pragmatic centrist approach, Ocasio-Cortez might be an option.
If they opt for the centrist alternative, it might be Harris or Gillibrand. Or, in both cases, a surprise candidate. But Sanders'
time is over, just as Biden's Bloomberg's.
It's true, but Trump is such a clusterfuck that an 80yo president is still be a better situation. Many countries have had rulers
in their 80s at one time or another.
Trump is clearly showing early-stage dementia now. Compare footage of him 10+ years ago to anything within the last 6-12 months
and it's obvious. The stress levels of being the POTUS + blackmailed by Putin + investigations bearing down on him . . . it's
wearing him down fast.
Anti-trust would be a very good place to start with.
Universal healthcare is a lot harder than you seem to think. I'd love it, but getting there means putting so many people out
of work, it'll be a massive political challenge, even if corporations have no influence. Progressives might be better off focusing
on how to ensure the existing system works better and Medicaid can slowly expand to fill the universal roll in the future.
Where has offering candidates who actually have a chance to win gotten us? Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, the ADA, Title
9, Social Security, and more. None of these exist without constant changes. All took years to pass against heavy opposition. None
went far enough. All were improvements.
The list of wrongheaded things that were also passed is longer but thinking nothing changes because it takes time is faulty
logic.
Our capitalist predators are still alive and well. The finance, insurance, and real estate
organizations are the worst predators in the USA.
They will eat your babies if you let them.
"... The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us". ..."
"... But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow Vests! ..."
"... In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone. ..."
"... This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him. ..."
"... Observing Macron, the people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall – they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action to save themselves and their country. ..."
"... This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together. ..."
"... Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened, looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds either! ..."
"... Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917. ..."
"... France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in Mélenchon 's accurate description. ..."
"... This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is already history. ..."
"... Or at least, for the people to be given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power. ..."
"... By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be described as revolutionary. ..."
"... Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold, the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement, or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe . ..."
"... Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more realistic scenario today, than in the past. ..."
The magazine LePoint is one of the main media outlets of the French
conservative "centre-right". One of its December issues carries the cover title France
Faces its History. 1648, 1789, 1830, 1848, 1871 four centuries of revolutions.
The cover features also a painting by Pierre-Jérôme Lordon, showing people
clashing with the army at Rue de Babylone , in Paris, during the
Revolution of 1830. Perhaps this is where Luc Ferry, Chirac's former minister, got his idea
from, when, two days ago, he asked the Army to intervene and the police to start shooting and
killing Yellow Vests.
Do not be surprised if you haven't heard this from your TV or if you don't know that the
level of police repression and violence in France, measured in people dead, injured and
arrested, has exceeded everything the country has experienced since 1968. Nor should you
wonder why you don't know anything about some Yellow Vest's new campaign calling for a
massive run on French banks. Or why you have been lead you to believe that the whole thing is
to do with fuel taxes or increasing minimum wage.
The vast majority of European media didn't even bother to communicate to their readers
or viewers the main political demands of the Yellow Vests ; and certainly, there hasn't
been any meaningful attempt to offer an insightful interpretation of what's happening in
France and there is just very little serious on-the-ground reporting, in the villages and
motorways of France.
Totalitarianism
Following Napoleon's defeat in Waterloo, European Powers formed the Holy Alliance banning
Revolutions.
Nowadays, Revolutions have just been declared inconceivable (Soros – though not just
him – has been giving a relentless fight to take them out of history textbooks or, as a
minimum, to erase their significance and meaning). Since they are unthinkable they cannot
happen. Since they cannot happen they do not happen.
In the same vein, European media sent their journalists out to the streets in Paris on
Christmas and New Year's days, counted the protesters and found that they weren't too many
after all. Of course they didn't count the 150,000 police and soldiers lined up by Macron on
New Year's Eve. Then they made sure that they remain "impartial" and by just comparing
numbers of protesters, led viewers to think that we are almost done with it – it was
just a storm, it will pass.
The other day I read a whole page article about Europe in one of the most "serious" Greek
newspapers, on 30.12. The author devoted just one single meaningless phrase about the Vests.
Instead, the paper still found the way to include in the article the utterly stupid statement
of a European Right-Wing politician who attributed the European crisis to the existence of
Russia Today and Sputnik! And when I finally found a somewhat more serious article online
about the developments in France, I realized that its only purpose was to convince us that
what is happening in France surely has nothing to do with 1789 or 1968!
It is only a pity that the people concerned, the French themselves, cannot read in Greek.
If they could, they would have realized that it does not make any sense to have "Revolution"
written on their vests or to sing the 1789 song in their demonstrations or to organize
symbolic ceremonies of the public "decapitation" of Macron, like Louis XV. And the French
bourgeois press would not waste time everyday comparing what happens in the country now with
what happened in 1968 and 1789.
Totalitarianism is not just a threat. It's already here. Simply it has omitted to
announce its arrival. We have to deduce its precence from its results.
A terrified
ruling class
The French bourgeoisie is the politically most experienced ruling class in Europe. It has
no illusions about the challenge it faces. Le Point put its file on the
revolt of the vests under the self-telling title "What is waiting us".
A few months ago, all we had about Macron in the papers was praise, inside and outside of
France – he was the "rising star" of European politics, the man who managed to pass the
"reforms" one after the other, no resistance could stop him, he would be the one to save and
rebuild Europe. Varoufakis admired and supported him, as early as of the first round of the
2017 elections.
Now, the "chosen one" became a burden for those who put him in office. Some of them
probably want to get rid of him as fast as they can, to replace him with someone else, but
it's not easy – and even more so, it is not easy given the monarchical powers conferred
by the French constitution to the President. The constitution is tailored to the needs of a
President who wants to safeguard power from the people. Those who drafted it could not
probably imagine it would make difficult for the Oligarchy also to fire him!
And who would dare to hold a parliamentary or presidential election in such a situation,
as in France today? No one knows what could come out of it. Moreover, Macron does not have a
party in the sense of political power. He has a federation of friends who benefit as long as
he stays in power and they are damaged when he collapses.
The King is naked
"The King is naked", points out Le Point's editorial, before, with almost sadistic
callousness, posing the question: "What can a government do when a remarkable section of the
people vomits it?"
But it's not only the king who is naked. The whole system is naked. In the many pages
devoted by the magazine to demonstrate that what the Vests want is unfeasible, not even a
single serious word is written about what needs to be done to deal with the deep causes which
led the French to revolt. Today's capitalism of Macron, Merkel and Trump does not produce a
Roosevelt and New Deal or Popular Fronts – and we have to wait to see if it will
produce a Hitler as some are trying to achieve. For the time being, it only produces Yellow
Vests!
They predicted it, they saw it coming, but they didn't believe it!
Yet they could have predicted all that. It would have sufficed, had they only taken
seriously and studied a book published in France in late 2016, six months before the
presidential election, highlighting the explosive nature of the social situation and warning
of the danger of revolution and civil war.
The title of the book was "Revolution". Its author was none other than Emmanuel Macron
himself. Six months later, he would become the President of France, to eventually verify, and
indeed rather spectacularly, his predictions. But the truth is probably, that not even he
himself gave much credit to what he wrote just to win the election.
By constantly lying, politicians, journalists and intellectuals reasonably came to believe
that even their own words are of no importance. That they can say and do anything they want,
without any consequence.
In Oscar Wilde's masterpiece "The Picture of Dorian Gray", the main character looks every
night at his horrible real self in the mirror. But he looks at it alone.
This is where Macron made his most fatal mistake, being arrogant and markedly cut off from
reality – with the confidence given to him by the mighty elite forces, which elected
him and by his contempt of the common people which characterizes him.
Unwise and Arrogant, he made no effort to hide – this is how sure he felt of
himself, this is how convinced his environment was that he could infinitely go on doing
anything he wanted without any consequences (same as our Tsipras). Thus, acting foolishly and
arrogantly, he left a few million eyes to see his real face. This was the last straw that
made the French people realize in a definite way what they had already started figuring out
during Sarkozy's and Hollande's, administration, or even earlier. Observing Macron, the
people understood what lied ahead for them. They felt their backs against the wall –
they felt that they had only themselves to rely on, that they had to take themselves action
to save themselves and their country.
There was nobody else to make it in their place.
Macron as a Provocateur.
Terror in Pompeii
This was the decisive moment, the moment the historical mission of Macron
was achieved . By establishing the most absolute control of Finance over Politics, he himself invited
Revolution. His triumph and his tragedy came together.
It was just then, that Bucephalus (*) sprang from the depths of historical Memory,
galloping without a rider, ready to sweep away everything in his path.
Now those in power look at him with fear, but fearful too are both the "radical right" and
the "radical left". Le Pen has already called on protesters to return to their homes and give
her names to include in her list for the European election!
Mélenchon supports the Vests – 70% of their demands coincide with the program
of his party, La France Insoumise – but so far he hasn't dared to join the
people in demanding Macron's resignation, by adopting the immense, but orphan, cry of the
people heard all over France: "Macron resign". Perhaps he feels that he hasn't got the steely
strength and willpower required for attempting to lead such a movement.
The unions' leadership is doing everything it can to keep the working class away from the
Vests, but this stand started causing increasing unrest at its base.
Many established "leftists" or "radical" intellectuals, who used to feverishly haul
capitalism over the coals – although the last thing they really wanted was to
experience a real revolution during their lifetime – they too, stand now frightened,
looking at an angry Bucephalus running ahead of them. They prefer a stable capitalism, of
which they can constitute its "consciousness", writing books, appearing on shows and giving
lectures, analyzing its crises and explaining its tribulations. They idea that the People
could at some point take seriously what they themselves said, never crossed their minds
either!
In fact, this is also a further confirmation of the depth of the movement. Lenin ,
who, in any event knew something about revolutions, wrote in 1917: "In a revolutionary
situation, the Party is a hundred times farther to the left than the Central Committee and
the workers a hundred times farther to the left than the Party."
"Revolutionary
Situation" and Power Vacuum
Today, four out of five French people disapprove of Macron's policies and one in two
demands that he resigns immediately. We assume that this percentage is greater than the
percentage of Russians who wanted the ousting of Tsar Nicholas II in February 1917.
France is currently almost in a state of Power Vacuum . The president and
the government cannot in essence govern and the people cannot tolerate them. It is not a
situation of dual power, but a situation of dual legitimacy , in
Mélenchon 's accurate description.
This is a typical definition of a revolutionary situation . As history
teaches us, the emergence of such a situation is necessary but not sufficient condition for a victorious Revolution. What is required in or order to turn
a rebellion into a potentially victorious Revolution, is a capable and decided leadership and
an adequate strategy, program and vision. These elements do not seem to exist, at last not
for now, in today's France, as they did not exist in May 1968 or during the Russian
Revolution of February 1917. Therefore, the present situation remains open to all possible
eventualities; there must be no doubt however, that this is the beginning of a period of
intense political and class conflicts in Europe, and that the Europe, as we know it, is
already history.
People's Sovereignty at the center of demands
Starting from fuel tax the revolting French have now put at the centre of their demands,
in addition to Macron's resignation, the following:
preserving the purchasingpower of the poorest social strata, e.g.
with the abolition of VAT on basic necessities to ensure decent standards of living for the
entire population,
the right of people to provoke referendums on any issue, the Citizens'
Initiative Referendum (RIC), including referendums to revokeelectedrepresentatives (the President, MPs, mayors, etc. ) when they violate their mandate,
all that in the context of establishing a SixthFrenchRepublic .
In other words, they demand a profound and radical " transformation " of the
Western bourgeois-democratic regime, as we know it, towards a form of directdemocracy in order to take back the state, which has gradually and in a totalitarian
manner – but while keeping up democratic appearances – passed under direct and
full control of the Financial Capital and its employees. Or at least, for the people to be
given the opportunity to develop an effective way of controlling state power.
These are not the demands of a fun-club of Protagoras or of some left-wing or right-wing
groupuscule propagating Self-Management or of some club of intellectuals. Nor are they the
demands of only the lowest social strata of the French nation.
They are supported, according to the polls and put forward by at least three quarters of
French citizens, including a sizeable portion of the less poor. In such circumstances, these
demands constitute in effect the Will of the People, the Will of the Nation.
The Vests are nothing more than its fighting pioneers. And precisely because it is the
absolute majority of people who align with these demands, even if numbers have somewhat gone
down since the beginning of December, the Vests are still wanted out on the streets.
By reversing Marx's famous formula in German Ideology , the ideas
of the dominant class do not dominate society. This is why the situation can be
described as revolutionary.
And also because it is not only the President and the Government, who have been debunked
or at least de-legitimized, but it's also the whole range of state and political
institutions, the parties, the unions, the "information" media and the "ideologists" of the
regime.
The questioning of the establishment is so profound that any arguments about violence and
the protesters do not weaken society's support for them. Many, but not all, condemn violence,
but there are not many who don't go on immediately to add a reminder of the regime's social
violence against the people. When a famous ex-boxer lost his temper and reacted by punching a
number of violent police officers, protesters set up a fundraising website for his legal
fees. In just two hours they managed to raise around 120.000 euro, before removing the page
over officials' complaints and threats about keeping a file on anyone who contributes money
to support such causes.
Until now, an overwhelming majority of the French people supports the demands while an
absolute majority shows supports for the demonstrations; but of course, it is difficult to
keep such a deadlock and power-void situation going for long. They will sooner or later
demand a solution, and in situations such as these it is often the case that public opinion
shifts rapidly from the one end of the political spectrum to the other and vice versa,
depending on which force appears to be more decisive and capable of driving
society out of the crisis.
The organization of the Movement
Because the protesters have no confidence in the parties, the trade unions, or anyone else
for that matter, they are driven out of necessity into self-organization, as they already do
with the Citizens' Assemblies that are now emerging in villages, cities and motorway camps.
Indeed, by the end of the month, if everything goes well, they will hold the first "
AssemblyofAssemblies ".
Similar developments have also been observed in many revolutionary movements of this kind
in various countries. A classic example is the spontaneous formation of the councils (
Soviets ) during the Russian revolutions of 1905 and 1917.
Although it is difficult to form an opinion from afar about how the situation may unfold,
the formation of a such a United Front from grassroots could perhaps offer a
way out with regards to the need for a political leadership for the movement,
or even of the need to work out a transitional economic program for
France, which must also serve as a transitional program for Europe .
Contrary to how things were a century ago, certain factors such as the educational level
of the lower social classes, the existence of a number of critical, radical thinkers with the
necessary intellectual skills and the Internet, render such a possibility a much more
realistic scenario today, than in the past.
Because the movement's Achilles' Heel is that, while it is already in the process of
forming a political proposition, it still, at least for now, does not offer any economic
alternative or a politically structured, democratically controlled leadership.
Effective Democracy is an absolute requirement in such a front, because it is the
only way to synthesize the inevitablydifferentlevels of
consciousness within the People and to avoid a split of the movement between "left"
and "right", between those who are ready to resort to violence to achieve their ends and
those who have a preference for more peaceful, gradual processes.
Such a " front " could perhaps also serve as a platform for solidifying a
program and vision, to which the various parties and political organizations could
contribute.
In her CritiqueoftheRussianRevolutionRosaLuxemburg , the leader of the German Social Democracy was overly critical
of the Bolsheviks , even if, I think, a bit too severe in some points. But she closes
her critique with the phrase: " They at least dared "
Driven by absolute Need, guided by the specific way its historical experience has formed
its consciousness, possessing a Surplus of Consciousness, that is able to feel the
unavoidable conclusions coming out of the synthesis of the information we all possess, about
both the "quality" of the forces governing our world and the enormous dangers threatening our
countries and mankind, the French People, the French Nation has already crossed the
Rubicon.
By moving practically to achieve their goals at a massive scale, and regardless of what is
to come next, the French people has already made a giant leap up and forward and, once more
in its history, it became the world's forerunner in tackling the terrible economic,
ecological, nuclear and technological threats against human civilization and its
survival.
Without the conscious entry of large masses into the historical scene, with all the
dangers and uncertainties that such a thing surely implies, one can hardly imagine how
humanity will survive.
Voters around the world revolt against leaders who won't improve their lives.
Newly-elected Utah senator Mitt Romney kicked off 2019 with an op-ed in the Washington Post
that savaged Donald Trump's character and leadership. Romney's attack and Trump's response
Wednesday morning on Twitter are the latest salvos in a longstanding personal feud between the
two men. It's even possible that Romney is planning to challenge Trump for the Republican
nomination in 2020. We'll see.
But for now, Romney's piece is fascinating on its own terms. It's well-worth reading. It's a
window into how the people in charge, in both parties, see our country.
Romney's main complaint in the piece is that Donald Trump is a mercurial and divisive
leader. That's true, of course. But beneath the personal slights, Romney has a policy critique
of Trump. He seems genuinely angry that Trump might pull American troops out of the Syrian
civil war. Romney doesn't explain how staying in Syria would benefit America. He doesn't appear
to consider that a relevant question. More policing in the Middle East is always better. We
know that. Virtually everyone in Washington agrees.
Corporate tax cuts are also popular in Washington, and Romney is strongly on board with
those, too. His piece throws a rare compliment to Trump for cutting the corporate rate a year
ago.
That's not surprising. Romney spent the bulk of his business career at a firm called Bain
Capital. Bain Capital all but invented what is now a familiar business strategy: Take over an
existing company for a short period of time, cut costs by firing employees, run up the debt,
extract the wealth, and move on, sometimes leaving retirees without their earned pensions.
Romney became fantastically rich doing this.
Meanwhile, a remarkable number of the companies are now bankrupt or extinct. This is the
private equity model. Our ruling class sees nothing wrong with it. It's how they run the
country.
Mitt Romney refers to unwavering support for a finance-based economy and an internationalist
foreign policy as the "mainstream Republican" view. And he's right about that. For generations,
Republicans have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while
simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars. Modern Democrats generally support those
goals enthusiastically.
There are signs, however, that most people do not support this, and not just in America. In
countries around the world -- France, Brazil, Sweden, the Philippines, Germany, and many others
-- voters are suddenly backing candidates and ideas that would have been unimaginable just a
decade ago. These are not isolated events. What you're watching is entire populations revolting
against leaders who refuse to improve their lives.
Something like this has been in happening in our country for three years. Donald Trump rode
a surge of popular discontent all the way to the White House. Does he understand the political
revolution that he harnessed? Can he reverse the economic and cultural trends that are
destroying America? Those are open questions.
But they're less relevant than we think. At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest
of us will be gone, too. The country will remain. What kind of country will be it be then? How
do we want our grandchildren to live? These are the only questions that matter.
The answer used to be obvious. The overriding goal for America is more prosperity, meaning
cheaper consumer goods. But is that still true? Does anyone still believe that cheaper iPhones,
or more Amazon deliveries of plastic garbage from China are going to make us happy? They
haven't so far. A lot of Americans are drowning in stuff. And yet drug addiction and suicide
are depopulating large parts of the country. Anyone who thinks the health of a nation can be
summed up in GDP is an idiot.
The goal for America is both simpler and more elusive than mere prosperity. It's happiness.
There are a lot of ingredients in being happy: Dignity. Purpose. Self-control. Independence.
Above all, deep relationships with other people. Those are the things that you want for your
children. They're what our leaders should want for us, and would want if they cared.
But our leaders don't care. We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to
the people they rule. They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through.
They have no skin in this game, and it shows. They can't solve our problems. They don't even
bother to understand our problems.
One of the biggest lies our leaders tell us that you can separate economics from everything
else that matters. Economics is a topic for public debate. Family and faith and culture,
meanwhile, those are personal matters. Both parties believe this.
Members of our educated upper-middle-classes are now the backbone of the Democratic Party
who usually describe themselves as fiscally responsible and socially moderate. In other words,
functionally libertarian. They don't care how you live, as long as the bills are paid and the
markets function. Somehow, they don't see a connection between people's personal lives and the
health of our economy, or for that matter, the country's ability to pay its bills. As far as
they're concerned, these are two totally separate categories.
Social conservatives, meanwhile, come to the debate from the opposite perspective, and yet
reach a strikingly similar conclusion. The real problem, you'll hear them say, is that the
American family is collapsing. Nothing can be fixed before we fix that. Yet, like the
libertarians they claim to oppose, many social conservatives also consider markets sacrosanct.
The idea that families are being crushed by market forces seems never to occur to them. They
refuse to consider it. Questioning markets feels like apostasy.
Both sides miss the obvious point: Culture and economics are inseparably intertwined.
Certain economic systems allow families to thrive. Thriving families make market economies
possible. You can't separate the two. It used to be possible to deny this. Not anymore. The
evidence is now overwhelming. How do we know? Consider the inner cities.
Thirty years ago, conservatives looked at Detroit or Newark and many other places and were
horrified by what they saw. Conventional families had all but disappeared in poor
neighborhoods. The majority of children were born out of wedlock. Single mothers were the rule.
Crime and drugs and disorder became universal.
What caused this nightmare? Liberals didn't even want to acknowledge the question. They were
benefiting from the disaster, in the form of reliable votes. Conservatives, though, had a ready
explanation for inner-city dysfunction and it made sense: big government. Decades of
badly-designed social programs had driven fathers from the home and created what conservatives
called a "culture of poverty" that trapped people in generational decline.
There was truth in this. But it wasn't the whole story. How do we know? Because virtually
the same thing has happened decades later to an entirely different population. In many ways,
rural America now looks a lot like Detroit.
This is striking because rural Americans wouldn't seem to have much in common with anyone
from the inner city. These groups have different cultures, different traditions and political
beliefs. Usually they have different skin colors. Rural people are white conservatives,
mostly.
Yet, the pathologies of modern rural America are familiar to anyone who visited downtown
Baltimore in the 1980s: Stunning out of wedlock birthrates. High male unemployment. A
terrifying drug epidemic. Two different worlds. Similar outcomes. How did this happen? You'd
think our ruling class would be interested in knowing the answer. But mostly they're not. They
don't have to be interested. It's easier to import foreign labor to take the place of
native-born Americans who are slipping behind.
But Republicans now represent rural voters. They ought to be interested. Here's a big part
of the answer: male wages declined. Manufacturing, a male-dominated industry, all but
disappeared over the course of a generation. All that remained in many places were the schools
and the hospitals, both traditional employers of women. In many places, women suddenly made
more than men.
Now, before you applaud this as a victory for feminism, consider the effects. Study after
study has shown that when men make less than women, women generally don't want to marry them.
Maybe they should want to marry them, but they don't. Over big populations, this causes a drop
in marriage, a spike in out-of-wedlock births, and all the familiar disasters that inevitably
follow -- more drug and alcohol abuse, higher incarceration rates, fewer families formed in the
next generation.
This isn't speculation. This is not propaganda from the evangelicals. It's social science.
We know it's true. Rich people know it best of all. That's why they get married before they
have kids. That model works. But increasingly, marriage is a luxury only the affluent in
America can afford.
And yet, and here's the bewildering and infuriating part, those very same affluent married
people, the ones making virtually all the decisions in our society, are doing pretty much
nothing to help the people below them get and stay married. Rich people are happy to fight
malaria in Congo. But working to raise men's wages in Dayton or Detroit? That's crazy.
This is negligence on a massive scale. Both parties ignore the crisis in marriage. Our
mindless cultural leaders act like it's still 1961, and the biggest problem American families
face is that sexism is preventing millions of housewives from becoming investment bankers or
Facebook executives.
For our ruling class, more investment banking is always the answer. They teach us it's more
virtuous to devote your life to some soulless corporation than it is to raise your own
kids.
Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook wrote an entire book about this. Sandberg explained that our
first duty is to shareholders, above our own children. No surprise there. Sandberg herself is
one of America's biggest shareholders. Propaganda like this has made her rich.
We are ruled by mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule.
They're day traders. Substitute teachers. They're just passing through. They have no skin in
this game, and it shows.
What's remarkable is how the rest of us responded to it. We didn't question why Sandberg was
saying this. We didn't laugh in her face at the pure absurdity of it. Our corporate media
celebrated Sandberg as the leader of a liberation movement. Her book became a bestseller: "Lean
In." As if putting a corporation first is empowerment. It is not. It is bondage. Republicans
should say so.
They should also speak out against the ugliest parts of our financial system. Not all
commerce is good. Why is it defensible to loan people money they can't possibly repay? Or
charge them interest that impoverishes them? Payday loan outlets in poor neighborhoods collect
400 percent annual interest.
We're OK with that? We shouldn't be. Libertarians tell us that's how markets work --
consenting adults making voluntary decisions about how to live their lives. OK. But it's also
disgusting. If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans,
whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street.
And by the way, if you really loved your fellow Americans, as our leaders should, if it
would break your heart to see them high all the time. Which they are. A huge number of our
kids, especially our boys, are smoking weed constantly. You may not realize that, because new
technology has made it odorless. But it's everywhere.
And that's not an accident. Once our leaders understood they could get rich from marijuana,
marijuana became ubiquitous. In many places, tax-hungry politicians have legalized or
decriminalized it. Former Speaker of the House John Boehner now lobbies for the marijuana
industry. His fellow Republicans seem fine with that. "Oh, but it's better for you than
alcohol," they tell us.
Maybe. Who cares? Talk about missing the point. Try having dinner with a 19-year-old who's
been smoking weed. The life is gone. Passive, flat, trapped in their own heads. Do you want
that for your kids? Of course not. Then why are our leaders pushing it on us? You know the
reason. Because they don't care about us.
When you care about people, you do your best to treat them fairly. Our leaders don't even
try. They hand out jobs and contracts and scholarships and slots at prestigious universities
based purely on how we look. There's nothing less fair than that, though our tax code comes
close.
Under our current system, an American who works for a salary pays about twice the tax rate
as someone who's living off inherited money and doesn't work at all. We tax capital at half of
what we tax labor. It's a sweet deal if you work in finance, as many of our rich people do.
In 2010, for example, Mitt Romney made about $22 million dollars in investment income. He
paid an effective federal tax rate of 14 percent. For normal upper-middle-class wage earners,
the federal tax rate is nearly 40 percent. No wonder Mitt Romney supports the status quo. But
for everyone else, it's infuriating.
Our leaders rarely mention any of this. They tell us our multi-tiered tax code is based on
the principles of the free market. Please. It's based on laws that the Congress passed, laws
that companies lobbied for in order to increase their economic advantage. It worked well for
those people. They did increase their economic advantage. But for everyone else, it came at a
big cost. Unfairness is profoundly divisive. When you favor one child over another, your kids
don't hate you. They hate each other.
That happens in countries, too. It's happening in ours, probably by design. Divided
countries are easier to rule. And nothing divides us like the perception that some people are
getting special treatment. In our country, some people definitely are getting special
treatment. Republicans should oppose that with everything they have.
What kind of country do you want to live in? A fair country. A decent country. A cohesive
country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own
profit and amusement. A country you might recognize when you're old.
A country that listens to young people who don't live in Brooklyn. A country where you can
make a solid living outside of the big cities. A country where Lewiston, Maine seems almost as
important as the west side of Los Angeles. A country where environmentalism means getting
outside and picking up the trash. A clean, orderly, stable country that respects itself. And
above all, a country where normal people with an average education who grew up in no place
special can get married, and have happy kids, and repeat unto the generations. A country that
actually cares about families, the building block of everything.
What will it take a get a country like that? Leaders who want it. For now, those leaders will
have to be Republicans. There's no option at this point.
But first, Republican leaders will have to acknowledge that market capitalism is not a
religion. Market capitalism is a tool, like a staple gun or a toaster. You'd have to be a fool
to worship it. Our system was created by human beings for the benefit of human beings. We do
not exist to serve markets. Just the opposite. Any economic system that weakens and destroys
families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society.
Internalizing all this will not be easy for Republican leaders. They'll have to unlearn
decades of bumper sticker-talking points and corporate propaganda. They'll likely lose donors
in the process. They'll be criticized. Libertarians are sure to call any deviation from market
fundamentalism a form of socialism.
That's a lie. Socialism is a disaster. It doesn't work. It's what we should be working
desperately to avoid. But socialism is exactly what we're going to get, and very soon unless a
group of responsible people in our political system reforms the American economy in a way that
protects normal people.
If you want to put America first, you've got to put its families first.
Adapted from Tucker Carlson's monologue from "Tucker Carlson Tonight" on January 2,
2019.
"... America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society." ..."
"... He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement." ..."
"... The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher wrote of Carlson's monologue, "A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president. ..."
"... The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke ..."
"... Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites -- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people." ..."
"... "What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?" ..."
"... Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald Trump, whose populist-lite presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it." ..."
"... Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative, thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment. ..."
"... Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax. ..."
"... "I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not." ..."
"... Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed." ..."
"... But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left. ..."
"... Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin. ..."
"... Hillbilly Elegy ..."
"... Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a function or raw nature." ..."
"All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God."
Last Wednesday, the conservative talk show host Tucker Carlson started a fire on the right after airing a prolonged
monologue on his show that was, in essence, an indictment of American capitalism.
America's "ruling class," Carlson says, are the "mercenaries" behind the failures of the middle class -- including sinking
marriage rates -- and "the ugliest parts of our financial system." He went on: "Any economic system that weakens and destroys families
is not worth having. A system like that is the enemy of a healthy society."
He concluded with a demand for "a fair country. A decent country. A cohesive country. A country whose leaders don't accelerate
the forces of change purely for their own profit and amusement."
The monologue was stunning in itself, an incredible moment in which a Fox News host stated that for generations, "Republicans
have considered it their duty to make the world safe for banking, while simultaneously prosecuting ever more foreign wars." More
broadly, though, Carlson's position and the ensuing controversy reveals an ongoing and nearly unsolvable tension in conservative
politics about the meaning of populism, a political ideology that Trump campaigned on but Carlson argues he may not truly understand.
Moreover, in Carlson's words: "At some point, Donald Trump will be gone. The rest of us will be gone too. The country will remain.
What kind of country will be it be then?"
The monologue and its sweeping anti-elitism drove a wedge between conservative writers. The American Conservative's Rod Dreher
wrote of Carlson's monologue,
"A man or woman who can talk like that with conviction could become president. Voting for a conservative candidate like that would
be the first affirmative vote I've ever cast for president." Other conservative commentators scoffed. Ben Shapiro wrote in
National Review that Carlson's monologue sounded far more like Sens. Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren than, say, Ronald Reagan.
I spoke with Carlson by phone this week to discuss his monologue and its economic -- and cultural -- meaning. He agreed that his
monologue was reminiscent of Warren, referencing her 2003
bookThe Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Parents Are Growing Broke . "There were parts of the book that I disagree
with, of course," he told me. "But there are parts of it that are really important and true. And nobody wanted to have that conversation."
Carlson wanted to be clear: He's just asking questions. "I'm not an economic adviser or a politician. I'm not a think tank
fellow. I'm just a talk show host," he said, telling me that all he wants is to ask "the basic questions you would ask about any
policy." But he wants to ask those questions about what he calls the "religious faith" of market capitalism, one he believes elites
-- "mercenaries who feel no long-term obligation to the people they rule" -- have put ahead of "normal people."
But whether or not he likes it, Carlson is an important voice in conservative politics. His show is among the
most-watched television programs in America. And his raising questions about market capitalism and the free market matters.
"What does [free market capitalism] get us?" he said in our call. "What kind of country do you want to live in? If you put
these policies into effect, what will you have in 10 years?"
Populism on the right is gaining, again
Carlson is hardly the first right-leaning figure to make a pitch for populism, even tangentially, in the third year of Donald
Trump, whose populist-lite
presidential candidacy and presidency Carlson told me he views as "the smoke alarm ... telling you the building is on fire, and unless
you figure out how to put the flames out, it will consume it."
Populism is a rhetorical approach that separates "the people" from elites. In the
words of Cas
Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, it divides the country into "two homogenous and antagonistic groups: the pure people
on the one end and the corrupt elite on the other." Populist rhetoric has a long history in American politics, serving as the focal
point of numerous presidential campaigns and powering William Jennings Bryan to the Democratic nomination for president in 1896.
Trump borrowed some of that approach for his 2016 campaign but in office has governed as a fairly orthodox economic conservative,
thus demonstrating the demand for populism on the right without really providing the supply and creating conditions for further ferment.
When right-leaning pundit Ann Coulter
spoke with Breitbart Radio about Trump's Tuesday evening Oval Office address to the nation regarding border wall funding, she
said she wanted to hear him say something like, "You know, you say a lot of wild things on the campaign trail. I'm speaking to big
rallies. But I want to talk to America about a serious problem that is affecting the least among us, the working-class blue-collar
workers":
Coulter urged Trump to bring up overdose deaths from heroin in order to speak to the "working class" and to blame the fact
that working-class wages have stalled, if not fallen, in the last 20 years on immigration. She encouraged Trump to declare, "This
is a national emergency for the people who don't have lobbyists in Washington."
Ocasio-Cortez wants a 70-80% income tax on the rich. I agree! Start with the Koch Bros. -- and also make it WEALTH tax.
These sentiments have even pitted popular Fox News hosts against each other.
Sean Hannity warned his audience that New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's economic policies would mean that "the rich people
won't be buying boats that they like recreationally, they're not going to be taking expensive vacations anymore." But Carlson agreed
when I said his monologue was somewhat reminiscent of Ocasio-Cortez's
past comments on the economy , and how even a strong economy was still leaving working-class Americans behind.
"I'm just saying as a matter of fact," he told me, "a country where a shrinking percentage of the population is taking home
an ever-expanding proportion of the money is not a recipe for a stable society. It's not."
Carlson told me he wanted to be clear: He is not a populist. But he believes some version of populism is necessary to prevent
a full-scale political revolt or the onset of socialism. Using Theodore Roosevelt as an example of a president who recognized that
labor needs economic power, he told me, "Unless you want something really extreme to happen, you need to take this seriously and
figure out how to protect average people from these remarkably powerful forces that have been unleashed."
"I think populism is potentially really disruptive. What I'm saying is that populism is a symptom of something being wrong," he
told me. "Again, populism is a smoke alarm; do not ignore it."
But Carlson's brand of populism, and the populist sentiments sweeping the American right, aren't just focused on the current
state of income inequality in America. Carlson tackled a bigger idea: that market capitalism and the "elites" whom he argues are
its major drivers aren't working. The free market isn't working for families, or individuals, or kids. In his monologue, Carlson
railed against libertarian economics and even payday loans, saying, "If you care about America, you ought to oppose the exploitation
of Americans, whether it's happening in the inner city or on Wall Street" -- sounding very much like Sanders or Warren on the left.
Carlson's argument that "market capitalism is not a religion" is of course old hat on the left, but it's also been bubbling on
the right for years now. When National Review writer Kevin Williamson
wrote
a 2016 op-ed about how rural whites "failed themselves," he faced a massive backlash in the Trumpier quarters of the right. And
these sentiments are becoming increasingly potent at a time when Americans can see both a booming stock market and perhaps their
own family members struggling to get by.
Capitalism/liberalism destroys the extended family by requiring people to move apart for work and destroying any sense
of unchosen obligations one might have towards one's kin.
At the Federalist, writer Kirk Jing
wrote of Carlson's
monologue, and a
response
to it by National Review columnist David French:
Our society is less French's America, the idea, and more Frantz Fanon's "Wretched of the Earth" (involving a very different
French). The lowest are stripped of even social dignity and deemed
unworthy of life . In Real America, wages are stagnant, life expectancy is crashing, people are fleeing the workforce, families
are crumbling, and trust in the institutions on top are at all-time lows. To French, holding any leaders of those institutions
responsible for their errors is "victimhood populism" ... The Right must do better if it seeks to govern a real America that exists
outside of its fantasies.
J.D. Vance, author of
Hillbilly Elegy
, wrote that the [neoliberal] economy's victories -- and praise for those wins from conservatives -- were largely meaningless
to white working-class Americans living in Ohio and Kentucky: "Yes, they live in a country with a higher GDP than a generation ago,
and they're undoubtedly able to buy cheaper consumer goods, but to paraphrase Reagan: Are they better off than they were 20 years
ago? Many would say, unequivocally, 'no.'"
Carlson's populism holds, in his view, bipartisan possibilities. In a follow-up email, I asked him why his monologue was aimed
at Republicans when many Democrats had long espoused the same criticisms of free market economics. "Fair question," he responded.
"I hope it's not just Republicans. But any response to the country's systemic problems will have to give priority to the concerns
of American citizens over the concerns of everyone else, just as you'd protect your own kids before the neighbor's kids."
Who is "they"?
And that's the point where Carlson and a host of others on the right who have begun to challenge the conservative movement's orthodoxy
on free markets -- people ranging from occasionally mendacious bomb-throwers like Coulter to writers like
Michael Brendan Dougherty -- separate
themselves from many of those making those exact same arguments on the left.
When Carlson talks about the "normal people" he wants to save from nefarious elites, he is talking, usually, about a specific
group of "normal people" -- white working-class Americans who are the "real" victims of capitalism, or marijuana legalization, or
immigration policies.
In this telling, white working-class Americans who once relied on a manufacturing economy that doesn't look the way it did in
1955 are the unwilling pawns of elites. It's not their fault that, in Carlson's view, marriage is inaccessible to them, or that marijuana
legalization means more teens are smoking weed (
this probably isn't true ). Someone,
or something, did this to them. In Carlson's view, it's the responsibility of politicians: Our economic situation, and the plight
of the white working class, is "the product of a series of conscious decisions that the Congress made."
The criticism of Carlson's monologue has largely focused on how he deviates from the free market capitalism that conservatives
believe is the solution to poverty, not the creator of poverty. To orthodox conservatives, poverty is the result of poor decision
making or a
lack of virtue that can't be solved by government programs or an anti-elite political platform -- and they say Carlson's argument
that elites are in some way responsible for dwindling marriage rates
doesn't make sense .
But in French's response to Carlson, he goes deeper, writing that to embrace Carlson's brand of populism is to support "victimhood
populism," one that makes white working-class Americans into the victims of an undefined "they:
Carlson is advancing a form of victim-politics populism that takes a series of tectonic cultural changes -- civil rights, women's
rights, a technological revolution as significant as the industrial revolution, the mass-scale loss of religious faith, the sexual
revolution, etc. -- and turns the negative or challenging aspects of those changes into an angry tale of what they are
doing to you .
And that was my biggest question about Carlson's monologue, and the flurry of responses to it, and support for it: When other
groups (say, black Americans) have pointed to systemic inequities within the economic system that have resulted in poverty and family
dysfunction, the response from many on the right has been, shall we say,
less than
enthusiastic .
Really, it comes down to when black people have problems, it's personal responsibility, but when white people have the same
problems, the system is messed up. Funny how that works!!
Yet white working-class poverty receives, from Carlson and others, far more sympathy. And conservatives are far more likely to
identify with a criticism of "elites" when they believe those elites are responsible for the
expansion of trans
rights or creeping secularism
than the wealthy and powerful people who are investing in
private prisons or an expansion
of the
militarization of police . Carlson's network, Fox News, and Carlson himself have frequently blasted leftist critics of market
capitalism and efforts to
fight
inequality .
I asked Carlson about this, as his show is frequently centered on the turmoils caused by "
demographic change
." He said that for decades, "conservatives just wrote [black economic struggles] off as a culture of poverty," a line he
includes in his monologue .
He added that regarding black poverty, "it's pretty easy when you've got 12 percent of the population going through something
to feel like, 'Well, there must be ... there's something wrong with that culture.' Which is actually a tricky thing to say because
it's in part true, but what you're missing, what I missed, what I think a lot of people missed, was that the economic system you're
living under affects your culture."
Carlson said that growing up in Washington, DC, and spending time in rural Maine, he didn't realize until recently that the same
poverty and decay he observed in the Washington of the 1980s was also taking place in rural (and majority-white) Maine. "I was thinking,
'Wait a second ... maybe when the jobs go away the culture changes,'" he told me, "And the reason I didn't think of it before was
because I was so blinded by this libertarian economic propaganda that I couldn't get past my own assumptions about economics." (For
the record, libertarians have
critiqued Carlson's
monologue as well.)
Carlson told me that beyond changing our tax code, he has no major policies in mind. "I'm not even making the case for an
economic system in particular," he told me. "All I'm saying is don't act like the way things are is somehow ordained by God or a
function or raw nature."
And clearly, our market economy isn't driven by God or nature, as the stock market soars and unemployment dips and yet even those
on the right are noticing lengthy periods of wage stagnation and dying little towns across the country. But what to do about those
dying little towns, and which dying towns we care about and which we don't, and, most importantly, whose fault it is that those towns
are dying in the first place -- those are all questions Carlson leaves to the viewer to answer.
"... Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble, which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible without 2008 events. ..."
Barkley insists on a left-right split for his analysis of political parties and their attachment to vague policy tendencies
and that insistence makes a mess of the central issue: why the rise of right-wing populism in a "successful" economy?
Naomi Klein's book is about how and why centrist neoliberals got control of policy. The rise of right-wing populism is often
supposed (see Mark Blyth) to be about the dissatisfaction bred by the long-term shortcomings of or blowback from neoliberal policy.
Barkley Rosser treats neoliberal policy as implicitly successful and, therefore, the reaction from the populist right appears
mysterious, something to investigate. His thesis regarding neoliberal success in Poland is predicated on policy being less severe,
less "shocky".
In his left-right division of Polish politics, the centrist neoliberals -- in the 21st century, Civic Platform -- seem to disappear
into the background even though I think they are still the second largest Party in Parliament, though some seem to think they
will sink in elections this year.
Electoral participation is another factor that receives little attention in this analysis. Politics is shaped in part by the
people who do NOT show up. And, in Poland that has sometimes been a lot of people, indeed.
Finally, there's the matter of the neoliberal straitjacket -- the flip-side of the shock in the one-two punch of "there's no
alternative". What the policy options for a Party representing the interests of the angry and dissatisfied? If you make policy
impossible for a party of the left, of course that breeds parties of the right. duh.
Likbez,
Bruce,
Blowback from the neoliberal policy is coming. I would consider the current situation in the USA as the starting point of this
"slow-motion collapse of the neoliberal garbage truck against the wall." Neoliberalism like Bolshevism in 1945 has no future,
only the past. That does not mean that it will not limp forward in zombie (and pretty bloodthirsty ) stage for another 50 years.
But it is doomed, notwithstanding recently staged revenge in countries like Ukraine, Argentina, and Brazil.
Excessive financialization is the Achilles' heel of neoliberalism. It inevitably distorts everything, blows the asset bubble,
which then pops. With each pop, the level of political support of neoliberalism shrinks. Hillary defeat would have been impossible
without 2008 events.
At least half of Americans now hate soft neoliberals of Democratic Party (Clinton wing of Bought by Wall Street technocrats),
as well as hard neoliberal of Republican Party, which created the " crisis of confidence" toward governing neoliberal elite in
countries like the USA, GB, and France. And that probably why the intelligence agencies became the prominent political players
and staged the color revolution against Trump (aka Russiagate ) in the USA.
The situation with the support of neoliberalism now is very different than in 1994 when Bill Clinton came to power. Of course,
as Otto von Bismarck once quipped "God has a special providence for fools, drunkards, and the United States of America." and another
turn of the technological spiral might well save the USA. But the danger of never-ending secular stagnation is substantial and
growing. This fact was admitted even by such dyed- in-the-wool neoliberals as Summers.
This illusion that advances in statistics gave neoliberal access to such fine-grained and timely economic data, that now it
is possible to regulate economy indirectly, by strictly monetary means is pure religious hubris. Milton Friedman would now be
laughed out the room if he tried to repeat his monetarist junk science now. Actually he himself discarded his monetarist illusions
before he died.
We probably need to the return of strong direct investments in the economy by the state and nationalization of some assets,
if we want to survive and compete with China. Australian politicians are already openly discussing this, we still are lagging
because of "walking dead" neoliberals in Congress like Pelosi, Schumer, and company.
But we have another huge problem, which Australia and other countries (other than GB) do not have: neoliberalism in the USA
is the state religion which completely displaced Christianity (and is hostile to Christianity), so it might be that the lemming
will go off the cliff. I hope not.
The only thing that still keeps neoliberalism from being thrown out to the garbage bin of history is that it is unclear what
would the alternative. And that means that like in 1920th far-right nationalism and fascism have a fighting chance against decadent
neoliberal oligarchy.
Previously financial oligarchy was in many minds associated with Jewish bankers. Now people are more educated and probably
can hang from the lampposts Anglo-Saxon and bankers of other nationalities as well ;-)
I think that in some countries neoliberal oligarchs might soon feel very uncomfortable, much like Soros in Hungary.
As far as I understood the level of animosity and suppressed anger toward financial oligarchy and their stooges including some
professors in economics departments of the major universities might soon be approaching the level which existed in the Weimar
Republic. And as Lenin noted, " the ideas could become a material force if they got mass support." This is true about anger as
well.
At the inception of this entire RussiaGate spectacle I suggested that it was a political
distraction to take the attention away from the rejection by the people of neoliberalism which
has been embraced by the establishments of both political parties.
And that the result of the investigation would be indictments for perjury in the covering up
of illicit business deals and money laundering. But that 'collusion to sway the election' was
without substance, if not a joke.
Everything that has been revealed to date tends to support that.
One thing that Aaron overlooks is the evidence compiled by William Binney and associates
that strongly suggests the DNC hack was no hack at all, but a leak by an insider who was
appalled by the lies and double dealing at the DNC.
In general, RussiaGate is a farcical distraction from other issues as they say in the video.
And this highlights the utterly Machiavellian streak in the corporate Democrats and the Liberal
establishment under the Clintons and their ilk who care more about money and power than the
basic principles that historically sustained their party. I have lost all respect for them.
But unfortunately this does open the door for those who use this to approve of the
Republican establishment, which is 'at least honest' about being substantially corrupt servants
to Big Money who care nothing about democracy, the Constitution, or the public. The best of
them are leaving or have already left, and their party is ruined beyond repair.
This all underscores the paucity of the Red v. Blue, monopoly of two parties, 'lesser of two
evils' model of political thought which has come to dominate the discussion in the US.
We are heavily propagandized by the owners of the corporate media and influencers of the
narrative, and a professional class that has sold its soul for economic advantage and access to
money and power.
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
The Democrats are politically responsible for the rise of Trump.
Notable quotes:
"... As Obama said following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump. ..."
"... The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout), pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man." ..."
"... This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to exploit discontent among impoverished social layers. ..."
Pelosi's deputy in the House, Steny Hoyer, sums up the right-wing policies of the Democrats,
declaring: "His [Trump's] objectives are objectives that we share. If he really means that,
then there is an opening for us to work together."
So much for the moral imperative of voting for the Democrats to stop Trump! As Obama said
following Trump's election, the Democrats and Republicans are "on the same team" and their
differences amount to an "intramural scrimmage." They are on the team of, and owned lock stock
and barrel by, the American corporate-financial oligarchy, personified by Trump.
The Democrats are, moreover, politically responsible for the rise of Trump. The Obama
administration paved the way for Trump by implementing the pro-corporate (Wall Street bailout),
pro-war (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, drone killings) and anti-democratic (mass
surveillance, persecution of Snowden, Assange, Manning) policies that Trump is continuing and
intensifying. And by breaking all his election promises and carrying out austerity policies
against the working class, Obama enabled the billionaire gangster Trump to make an appeal to
sections of workers devastated by deindustrialization, presenting himself as the
anti-establishment spokesman for the "forgotten man."
This was compounded by the right-wing Clinton candidacy, which exuded contempt for the
working class and appealed for support to the military and CIA and wealthy middle-class layers
obsessed with identity politics. Sanders' endorsement of Clinton gave Trump an open field to
exploit discontent among impoverished social layers.
The same process is taking place internationally. While strikes and other expressions of
working class opposition are growing and broad masses are moving to the left, the right-wing
policies of supposedly "left" establishment parties are enabling far-right and neo-fascist
forces to gain influence and power in countries ranging from Germany, Italy, Hungary and Poland
to Brazil.
As for Gay's injunction to vote "pragmatically," this is a crude promotion of the bankrupt
politics that are brought forward in every election to keep workers tied to the capitalist
two-party system. "You have only two choices. That is the reality, whether you like it or not."
And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy
is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting
you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today --
falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war.
The Democratic Party long ago earned the designation "graveyard of social protest
movements," and for good reason. From the Populist movement of the late 19th century, to the
semi-insurrectional industrial union movement of the 1930s, to the civil rights movement of the
1950s and 1960s, to the mass anti-war protest movements of the 1960s and the eruption of
international protests against the Iraq War in the early 2000s -- every movement against the
depredations of American capitalism has been aborted and strangled by being channeled behind
the Democratic Party.
"... There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich, the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats. It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9? ..."
"... So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're a right-wing party.) ..."
"... I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement stuff and similar nonsense. ..."
"... If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed legislation. ..."
"... They claim there's a difference between the two parties? ..."
"... But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street, Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general. ..."
"... Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots, and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake. ..."
It's not even decent theatre. Drama is much lacking, character development zilch. The outcome that dems take congress,& rethugs
improve in senate is exactly as was predicted months ago.
The dems reveal once again exactly how mendacious and uncaring of
the population they are. Nothing matters other than screwing more cash outta anyone who wants anything done so that the DC trough
stays full with the usual crew of 4th & 5th generation wannabe dem pols guzzling hard at the corporate funded 'dem aligned' think
tanks which generate much hot air yet never deliver. Hardly suprising given that actually doing something to show they give a
sh1t about the citizenry would annoy the donor who would give em all the boot, making all these no-hopers have to take up a gig
actually practising law.
These are people whose presence at the best law schools in the country prevented many who wanted to be y'know lawyers from
entering Harvard, Cornell etc law school. "one doesn't go to law school to become a lawyer It too hard to even pull down a mil
a year as a brief, nah, I studied the law to learn how to make laws that actually do the opposite of what they seem to. That is
where the real dough is."
Those who think that is being too hard on the dem slugs, should remember that the rethugs they have been indoctrinated to detest
act pretty much as printed on the side of the can. They advertise a service of licking rich arseholes and that is exactly what
they do. As venal and sociopathic as they are, at least they don't pretend to be something else; so while there is no way one
could vote for anyone spouting republican nonsense at least they don't hide their greed & corruption under a veneer of pseudo-humanist
nonsense. Dems cry for the plight of the poverty stricken then they slash welfare.
Or dems sob about the hard row african americans must hoe, then go off to the house of reps to pass laws to keep impoverished
african americans slotted up in an over crowded prison for the rest of his/her life.
Not only deceitful and vicious, 100% pointless since any Joe/Jo that votes on the basis of wanting to see more blackfellas
incarcerated is always gonna tick the rethug box anyhow.
Yeah- yeah we know all this so what?
This is what - the dems broke their arses getting tens of millions of young first time voters out to "exercise their democratic
prerogative" for the first time. Dems did this knowing full well that there would be no effective opposition to rethug demands
for more domestic oppression, that in fact it is practically guaranteed that should the trump and the rethug senate require it,
in order to ensure something particularly nasty gets passed, that sufficient dem congress people will 'cross the floor' to make
certain the bill does get up.
Of course the dems in question will allude to 'folks back home demanding' that the dem slug does vote with the nasties, but
that is the excuse, the reality is far too many dem pols are as bigoted greedy and elitist as the worst rethugs.
Anyway the upshot of persuading so many kids to get out and vote, so the kids do but the dems are content to just do more of
the same, will be another entire generation lost to elections forever.
If the DNC had been less greedy and more strategic they would have kept their powder dry and hung off press-ganging the kids
until getting such a turnout could have resulted in genuine change, prez 2020' or whenever, would be actual success for pols and
voters.
But they didn't and wouldn't ever, since for a dem pol, hundreds of thousands of fellow citizens living on the street isn't
nearly as problematic for them, as the dem wannabe pol paying off the mortgage on his/her DC townhouse by 2020, something that
would have been impossible if they hadn't taken congress as all the 'patrons' would have jerked back their cash figuring there
is no gain giving dosh to losers who couldn't win a bar raffle.
As for that Sharice Davids - a total miss she needed to be either a midget or missing an arm or leg to qualify as the classic
ID dem pol. Being a native american lezzo just doesn't tick enough boxes. I predict a not in the least illustrious career since
she cannot even qualify as the punchline in a circa 1980's joke.
As you said, nothing will get out of the House, Pelosi can't lead. They can easily swing 3 Democrats, then Mike Pence puts
the hammer down. If anything manages to crawl through, it won't even be brought to a vote in the Republican Senate. Trump can
still us his bully pulpit to circle the White wagons, fly in even more than his current 1,125,000 H-visa aliens, and No Taxes
for the Rich is now engraved in stone for the Pharoahs.
The imminent $1,500B Omnibus Deficit Bill Three will be lauded as a 'bipartisan solution' by both houses, and 2020 looks to
be a $27,000B illegal, onerous, odious National Debt open Civil War.
There is only the Deep Purple Mil.Gov UniParty. The Titanic is dead in the water, lights out, bow down hard. The Rich,
the Corporate Profiteers and the Military-Political Establishment have pulled away in their fur and jewel-encrusted life boats.
It's one minute after midnight on the Doomsday Clock, the hands have fallen off the Debt Clock, the skies are burning and seas
are rising (they say), and we are in WW3 in 8 nations. Or is it 9?
Smart money is moving toward the exits. This shyte is gonna blow. Let's move to Australia, before it becomes part of Xi's PRC
String of Girls.
Reading most of the comments explaining how the D's won/lost,,, the R's won/lost,,, Trump and company won/lost,,, but couldn't
find one post about how America is losing due to the two suffocating party's and a greedy, disunited, selfish, electorate that
wants it all free.
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the Majority discovers it can vote itself
largess out of the public treasury,,,,,,, After that the Majority always votes for the candidate 'promising the most' ,,,,,,,
Alex Fraser.
So the Democrat faction of the Corporate One-Party took back control of the House from the Republican faction. (It's one hard-right
party, of course; only liars and those ignorant of history call the Dems "centrist". By any objective or historical standard they're
a right-wing party.)
It's no big surprise. Last two years it's been the normally self-assured Republicans who, because of their ambivalence about Trump,
have uncharacteristically taken on the usual Democrat role of existential confusion and doubt. Meanwhile the Democrats, in a berserk
batsh$t-insane way, have been more motivated and focused.
So what are these Democrats going to do with this control now that they have it?
I made no prediction on what would happen in this election, but I've long predicted that if/when the Democrats win control of
either house they'll do nothing with that control. Jack squat. Status quo all the way, embellished with more retarded Russia-Derangement
stuff and similar nonsense.
If there really were a difference between these corporate factions, here's the chance for the House to obstruct all Senate-passed
legislation. And as for things which are technically only in the power of the Senate such as confirming appointments, here's the
chance for the House to put public moral pressure on Democrats in the Senate. And there's plenty of back-door ways an activist
House can influence Senate business. Only morbid pedantry, so typical of liberal Dembots, babbles about what the technical powers
of this or that body are. The real world doesn't work that way. To the extent I pay attention at all to Senate affairs it'll be
to see what the House is doing about it.
They claim there's a difference between the two parties? And they claim Trump is an incipient fascist dictator? In that case there's
a lot at stake, and extreme action is called for. Let's see what kind of action we get from their "different" party in control
of the House.
But I predict this House won't lift a finger vs. the Senate, and that it'll strive to work with the Senate on legislation, and
that it'll fully concur with the Senate on war budgets, police state measures, anything and everything demanded by Wall Street,
Big Ag, the fossil fuel extractors, and of course the corporate welfare state in general.
Nor will any of these new-fangled fake "socialist" types take any action to change things one iota. Within the House Democrats,
they could take action, form any and every kind of coalition, to obstruct the corporate-Pelosi leadership faction. They will not
do so. This "new" progressive bloc will be just as fake as the old one.
Nothing I've talked about here is anything but what is possible, what is always implicitly or explicitly promised by Dembots,
and what it would seem is the minimum necessary given what Dembots claim is the scope of the crisis and what is at stake.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But
should the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as
a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed, as we saw with the
pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic
politicians and critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain
control of the House and the Senate, violence will still be the favored instrument of political
control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are in for
it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham.
Only the rich like his tax cuts, his refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to
destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not to say that, if
only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of
the war industry and the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel
industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic control of the House will do very
little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis
brewing on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that
has given rise to Trump, are the party of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics,
Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump! This is
ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing
another run for the presidency after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political
heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast elites who want to instill
corporate fascism with a friendly face.
Bertram
Gross (1912-1997) in "Friendly Fascism: The New Face of American Power" warned us that
fascism always has two looks. One is paternal, benevolent, entertaining and kind. The other is
embodied in the executioner's sadistic leer. Janus-like, fascism seeks to present itself to a
captive public as a force for good and moral renewal. It promises protection against enemies
real and invented. But denounce its ideology, challenge its power, demand freedom from
fascism's iron grip, and you are mercilessly crushed. Gross knew that if the United States'
form of fascism, expressed through corporate tyranny, was able to effectively mask its true
intentions behind its "friendly" face we would be stripped of power, shorn of our most
cherished rights and impoverished. He has been proved correct.
"Looking at the present, I see a more probable future: a new despotism creeping slowly
across America," Gross wrote. "Faceless oligarchs sit at command posts of a
corporate-government complex that has been slowly evolving over many decades. In efforts to
enlarge their own powers and privileges, they are willing to have others suffer the intended or
unintended consequences of their institutional or personal greed. For Americans, these
consequences include chronic inflation, recurring recession, open and hidden unemployment, the
poisoning of air, water, soil and bodies, and more important, the subversion of our
constitution. More broadly, consequences include widespread intervention in international
politics through economic manipulation, covert action, or military invasion."
No totalitarian state has mastered propaganda better than the corporate state. Our press has
replaced journalism with trivia, feel-good stories, jingoism and celebrity gossip. The banal
and the absurd, delivered by cheery corporate courtiers, saturate the airwaves. Our emotions
are skillfully manipulated around manufactured personalities and manufactured events. We are,
at the same time, offered elaborate diversionary spectacles including sporting events, reality
television and absurdist political campaigns. Trump is a master of this form of entertainment.
Our emotional and intellectual energy is swallowed up by the modern equivalent of the Roman
arena. Choreographed political vaudeville, which costs corporations billions of dollars, is
called free elections. Cliché-ridden slogans, which assure us that the freedoms we
cherish remain sacrosanct, dominate our national discourse as these freedoms are stripped from
us by judicial and legislative fiat. It is a vast con game.
You cannot use the word "liberty" when your government, as ours does, watches you 24 hours a
day and stores all of your personal information in government computers in perpetuity. You
cannot use the word "liberty" when you are the most photographed and monitored population in
human history. You cannot use the word "liberty" when it is impossible to vote against the
interests of Goldman Sachs or General Dynamics. You cannot use the word "liberty" when the
state empowers militarized police to use indiscriminate lethal force against unarmed citizens
in the streets of American cities. You cannot use the word "liberty" when 2.3 million citizens,
mostly poor people of color, are held in the largest prison system on earth. This is the
relationship between a master and a slave. The choice is between whom we want to clamp on our
chains -- a jailer who mouths politically correct bromides or a racist, Christian fascist.
Either way we are shackled.
Gross understood that unchecked corporate power would inevitably lead to corporate fascism.
It is the natural consequence of the ruling ideology of neoliberalism that consolidates power
and wealth into the hands of a tiny group of oligarchs. The political philosopher Sheldon
Wolin , refining Gross' thesis, would later characterize this corporate tyranny or friendly
fascism as "inverted totalitarianism." It was, as Gross and Wolin pointed out, characterized by
anonymity. It purported to pay fealty to electoral politics, the Constitution and the
iconography and symbols of American patriotism but internally had seized all of the levers of
power to render the citizen impotent. Gross warned that we were being shackled incrementally.
Most would not notice until they were in total bondage. He wrote that "a friendly fascist power
structure in the United States, Canada, Western Europe, or today's Japan would be far more
sophisticated than the 'caesarism' of fascist Germany, Italy, and Japan. It would need no
charismatic dictator nor even a titular head it would require no one-party rule, no mass
fascist party, no glorification of the State, no dissolution of legislatures, no denial of
reason. Rather, it would come slowly as an outgrowth of present trends in the
Establishment."
Gross foresaw that technological advances in the hands of corporations would be used to trap
the public in what he called "cultural ghettoization" so that "almost every individual would
get a personalized sequence of information injections at any time of the day -- or night." This
is what, of course, television, our electronic devices and the internet have done. He warned
that we would be mesmerized by the entertaining shadows on the wall of the Platonic cave as we
were enslaved.
Gross knew that the most destructive force against the body politic would be the war
profiteers and the militarists. He saw how they would siphon off the resources of the state to
wage endless war, a sum that now accounts for half of all discretionary spending. And he
grasped that warfare is the natural extension of corporatism. He wrote:
Under the militarism of German, Italian, and Japanese fascism violence was openly
glorified. It was applied regionally -- by the Germans in Europe and England, the Italians in
the Mediterranean, the Japanese in Asia. In battle, it was administered by professional
militarists who, despite many conflicts with politicians, were guided by old-fashioned
standards of duty, honor, country, and willingness to risk their own lives.
The emerging militarism of friendly fascism is somewhat different. It is global in scope.
It involves weapons of doomsday proportions, something that Hitler could dream of but never
achieve. It is based on an integration between industry, science, and the military that the
old-fashioned fascists could never even barely approximate. It points toward equally close
integration among military, paramilitary, and civilian elements. Many of the civilian leaders
-- such as Zbigniew Brzezinski or Paul Nitze -- tend to be much more bloodthirsty than any
top brass. In turn, the new-style military professionals tend to become corporate-style
entrepreneurs who tend to operate -- as Major Richard A. Gabriel and Lieutenant Colonel Paul
L. Savage have disclosed -- in accordance with the ethics of the marketplace. The old
buzzwords of duty, honor, and patriotism are mainly used to justify officer subservience to
the interests of transnational corporations and the continuing presentation of threats to
some corporate investments as threats to the interest of the American people as a whole.
Above all, in sharp contrast with classic fascism's glorification of violence, the friendly
fascist orientation is to sanitize, even hide, the greater violence of modern warfare behind
such "value-free" terms as "nuclear exchange," "counterforce" and "flexible response," behind
the huge geographical distances between the senders and receivers of destruction through
missiles or even on the "automated battlefield," and the even greater psychological distances
between the First World elites and the ordinary people who might be consigned to quick or
slow death.
We no longer live in a functioning democracy. Self-styled liberals and progressives, as they
do in every election cycle, are urging us to vote for the Democrats, although the Democratic
Party in Europe would be classified as a right-wing party, and tell us to begin to build
progressive movements the day after the election. Only no one ever builds these movements. The
Democratic Party knows there is no price to pay for selling us out and its abject service to
corporations. It knows the left and liberals become supplicants in every election cycle. And
this is why the Democratic Party drifts further and further to the right and we become more and
more irrelevant. If you stand for something, you have to be willing to fight for it. But there
is no fight in us.
The elites, Republican and Democrat, belong to the same club. We are not in it. Take a look
at the flight roster of the billionaire
Jeffrey Epstein , who was accused of prostituting dozens of underage girls and ended up
spending 13 months in prison on a single count. He flew political insiders from both parties
and the business world to his secluded Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," on his jet,
which the press nicknamed "the Lolita Express." Some of the names on his flight
roster, which usually included unidentified women, were Bill Clinton, who took dozens of trips,
Alan
Dershowitz , former Treasury Secretary and former Harvard President Larry Summers, the
Candide -like
Steven Pinker ,
whose fairy dust ensures we are getting better and better, and Britain's Prince Andrew. Epstein
was also a friend of Trump, whom he visited at Mar-a-Lago.
We live on the precipice, the eve of the deluge. Past civilizations have crumbled in the
same way, although as Hegel understood, the only thing we learn from history is "that people
and governments never have learned anything from history." We will not arrest the decline if
the Democrats regain control of the House. At best we will briefly slow it. The corporate
engines of pillage, oppression, ecocide and endless war are untouchable. Corporate power will
do its dirty work regardless of which face -- the friendly fascist face of the Democrats or the
demented visage of the Trump Republicans -- is pushed out front. If you want real change,
change that means something, then mobilize, mobilize, mobilize, not for one of the two
political parties but to rise up and destroy the corporate structures that ensure our doom.
Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because
Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to
recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and
worse.
Exactly.
Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer
can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to
compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.
Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population,
including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see
exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.
That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported
Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party
that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.
"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal
elite.
control of the Senate, a relentlessly undemocratic institution
likbez 10.08.18 at 6:24 am (no link)
I think the US society is entering a deep, sustained political crisis and it is unclear what
can bring us back from it other then the collapse, USSR-style. The USA slide into corporate
socialism (which might be viewed as a flavor of neofascism) can't be disputed.
Looks like all democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America,
the elite do not care about lower 80% of the population, and is over-engaged in cynical
identity politics, race and gender-mongering. Anything to win votes.
MSM is still cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans,
impoverish millions, and cost trillions. Congress looks even worse. Republican House leader
Paul Ryan looks like 100% pure bought-and-paid-for tool of multinational corporations
The scary thing for me is that the USA national problems are somewhat similar to the ones
that the USSR experienced before the collapse. At least the level of degeneration of
political elite of both parties (which in reality is a single party) is.
The only positive things is that there is viable alternative to neoliberalism on the
horizon. But that does not mean that we can't experience 1930th on a new level again. Now
several European countries such as Poland and Ukraine are already ruled by far right
nationalist parties. Brazil is probably the next. So this or military rule in the USA is not
out of question.
Some other factors are also in play: one is that a country with 320 million population
can't be governed by the same methods as a country of 76 million (1900). End of cheap oil is
near and probably will occur within the next 50 years or so. Which means the end of
neoliberalism as we know it.
Tucker states that the USA's neoliberal elite acquired control of a massive chunk of the
country's wealth. And then successfully insulated themselves from the hoi polloi. They send
their children to the Ivy League universities, live in enclosed compounds with security
guards, travel in helicopters, etc. Kind of like French aristocracy on a new level ("Let them
eat cakes"). "There's nothing more infuriating to a ruling class than contrary opinions.
They're inconvenient and annoying. They're evidence of an ungrateful population Above all,
they constitute a threat to your authority." (insert sarcasm)
Donald Trump was in many ways an unappealing figure. He never hid that. Voters knew it.
They just concluded that the options were worse -- and not just Hillary Clinton and the
Democratic Party, but the Bush family and their donors and the entire Republican
leadership, along with the hedge fund managers and media luminaries and corporate
executives and Hollywood tastemakers and think tank geniuses and everyone else who created
the world as it was in the fall of 2016: the people in charge. Trump might be vulgar and
ignorant, but he wasn't responsible for the many disasters America's leaders created .
There was also the possibility that Trump might listen. At times he seemed interested in
what voters thought. The people in charge demonstrably weren't. Virtually none of their
core beliefs had majority support from the population they governed .Beginning on election
night, they explained away their loss with theories as pat and implausible as a summer
action movie: Trump won because fake news tricked simple minded voters. Trump won because
Russian agents "hacked" the election. Trump won because mouth-breathers in the provinces
were mesmerized by his gold jet and shiny cuff links.
From a reader review:
The New Elite speaks: "The Middle Class are losers and they have made bad choices, they
haven't worked as hard as the New Elite have, they haven't gone to SAT Prep or LSAT prep so
they lose, we win. We are the Elite and we know better than you because we got high SAT
scores.
Do we have experience? Uh .well no, few of us have been in the military, pulled KP, shot
an M-16 . because we are better than that. Like they say only the losers go in the
military. We in the New Elite have little empirical knowledge but we can recognize patterns
very quickly."
Just look at Haley behavior in the UN and Trump trade wars and many things became more
clear. the bet is on destruction of existing international institutions in order to save the
USA elite. A the same time Trump trade wars threaten the neoliberal order so this might well
be a path to the USA self-destruction.
On Capital hill rancor, a lack of civility and derisive descriptions are everywhere.
Respect has gone out the window. Left and right wings of a single neoliberal party (much like
CPSU was in the USSR) behave like drunk schoolchildren. Level of pettiness is simply
amazing.
The fundamental rule of democratic electoral politics is this: tribes don't win elections,
coalitions do. Trump's appeal is strongly tribal, and he has spent two years consolidating
his appeal to that tribe rather than reaching out. But he won in 2016 (or 'won') not on the
strength of that tribal appeal, but because of a coalition between core Trumpists and more
respectable conservatives and evangelicals, including a lot of people who find Trump himself
vulgar and repellent, but who are prepared to hold their noses. The cause
célèbre (or cause de l'infâme) that Kavanaugh's appointment became
ended-up uniting these two groups; the Trumpists on the one hand ('so the Libs are saying we
can't even enjoy a beer now, are they?') and the old-school religious Conservatives,
for whom abortion is a matter of conscience.
Given the weird topographies of US democratic process, the Democrats need to build a
bigger counter-coalition than the coalition they are opposing. Metropolitan liberals are in
the bag, so that means reconnecting with the working class, and galvanising the black and
youth votes, which have a poor record of converting social media anger into actual ballot-box
votes. But it also means reaching out to moderate religious conservatives, and the Dems don't
seem to me to have a strategy for this last approach at all. Which is odd, because it would
surely, at least in some ways, be easier than persuading young people to vote at the levels
old people vote. At the moment abortion (the elephant in the Kavanaugh-confirmation room) is
handled by the Left as a simple matter of structural misogyny, the desire to oppress and
control female bodies. I see why it is treated that way; there are good reasons for that
critique. But it's electorally dumb. Come at it another way instead, accept that many
religious people oppose abortion because they see it as killing children; then lead the
campaign on the fact that the GOP is literally putting thousands upon thousands of
children in concentration camps . Shout about that fact. Determine how many kids
literally die each year because their parents can't access free healthcare and put that stat
front and centre. Confront enough voters with the false consciousness of only caring about
abortion and not these other monstrosities and some will reconsider their position.
And one more thing that I have never understood about the Dems (speaking as an outsider),
given how large a political force Christianity is in your country: make more of Jimmy Carter.
He's a man of extraordinary conscience as well as a man of faith; the contrast with how he
has lived his post-Presidential life and the present occupier of the White House could
hardly, from a Christian perspective, be greater. If the Dems can make a love-thy-neighbour
social justice Christianity part of their brand, leaving Mammon to the GOP, then they'd be in
power for a generation.
"... In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish, young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not live in a mature society. ..."
"... Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman? Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi, Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed. ..."
"... I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate democrats and their Wall St. benefactors. ..."
"... Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it, consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing debtors. ..."
"... Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. ..."
"... Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the membership should follow and vote for. ..."
"... Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support. ..."
"... The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white) race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago. ..."
"... As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless, African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they are. ..."
"... George Phillies didn't say the Republicans had "good" ideas. He just noted that the Republicans have "ideas". A "bad" idea is still an "idea". ..."
"... So Pelosi's final bequest to the public is a corrupt successor? What a world! ..."
"... Pelosi's been quoted a number of times saying, "we lead with our values". You certainly do, Mrs. Speaker! Thanks for making it clear! ..."
"... Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the establishment. ..."
"... As far as I've seen, they trot out identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters actually want. ..."
"... Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power. ..."
"... To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be ..."
"... Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as mendacious. ..."
"... Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom, regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter. ..."
"... I can think of a couple of identity-words to offer to see if anyone identifies with them. Ex-middle class. Nouveau poor. ..."
"... Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal. ..."
"... The West is simply too bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a complete lack of prioritization. ..."
Eric Holder, former attorney general of the USA under President Obama, has publicly
announced that he is considering a run for the White House in 2020. (Thanks to that
WikiLeaked email awhile back, we know that Citigroup directed a newly elected President Obama
to appoint him to the position of A.G.)
I fervently pray that Eric Holder, of Covington & Burling, declares himself a
candidate!
Only then will the opportunity again present itself to expose Eric Holder -- and Covington
& Burling -- in their involvement with the creation and operation of MERS (Mortgage
Electronic Reporting System) and its connection to the global economic meltdown (2007 --
2009), the greatest illegal wealth transfer and insurance swindle in human history!
How we would welcome such transparency of evil, how BlackRock profited from that economic
meltdown, then oversaw the disbursement of those TARP bailout funds.
Exposure of the network of BlackRock and Vanguard and State Street and Fidelity; exposure
of their major investors. Further exposure of the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group and
other such PE/LBO giants!
How the InterContinental Exchange (ICE) was involved in nefarious commodity price rigging,
etc., manipulated derivatives dealing and how today they oversee LIBOR rates!
The further exposure of the influence and perfidy of the Group of Thirty (www.group30.org)
and the Bretton Woods Committee (www.brettonwoods.org) -- oh how we'd love to see such
exposure!
Holder for President? Oh boy Mr. Peabody! That's great!
If a critical difference-making margin of non-voting Black non-voters in Milwaukee were
willing to non-vote between Clinton and Trump even at the price of letting Trump take
Wisconsin, that could mean that the Race Card is wearing thin. Who exactly would Mr. Holder
be able to fool in Milwaukee? He would do well in Hyde Park though . . . getting the Guilty
White Privilege Expiation vote. Will that be enough? Will the Madison vote be enough to make
up for the Milwaukee non-vote?
You know who would be a perfect pair? Holder and Harris. Or Holder and Booker. Or some
such. Seriously, if the DemParty nominates Holder, I will vote for Trump all over again. And
at the Senate or Representative level, I would vote for an old legacy New Deal Democrat if
there is one. But if they run a Clintonite, some protest Third Party looks very attractive by
comparison.
In a mature society, it would not matter if someone was black, white, gay, Jewish,
young, old, whatever but what policies they bring to the party. This article, going out of
its way to label Nixon as LGBT and Sanders as Jewish, really only means that they are letting
the other side set the rules and that is never a winning position. Unfortunately we do not
live in a mature society.
If push came to shove you would have to describe both the Republican and Democrat parties
as bastions of neoliberalism and both parties play games with identity politics as it
fractures those who would oppose them and encourages internecine warfare. Like a kaleidoscope
shifting focus, the 2008 crash has started off a shift in how politics is done and the
success of Trump in the US, Brexit in the UK as well as other leaders is this shift in its
first efforts of readjusting.
Not until people are done with identity politics will it be really possible to bring a new
order into focus. Support Kamala Harris, for example, because she is not white and a woman?
Not unless she has policies that the bulk of Americans want and is not just the old party in
a new guise. I suspect that this use of the term 'progressive' is just a term to describe
what the majority of Americans want out of their governments. People like Clinton, Pelosi,
Waters and Albright can not and will not do this so time for them to be pushed aside. I think
that the US Presidential election of 2020 will be very telling of how things play out as the
results of the 2018 mid-terms are absorbed.
I think identity politics has always served as a diversion for elites to play within the
neoliberal bandwidth of decreasing public spending. Fake austerity and an unwillingness to
use conjured money for public QE are necessary for pursuing neoliberal privatization of
public enterprises. Therefore Bernie and his MMT infrastructure are anathema to corporate
democrats and their Wall St. benefactors.
Moral Monday represents what I deem as people over profit. I would rather be a spoiler
than enable corporate sociopaths to.expand mass incarceration, end welfare as we know it,
consider the killing of a half-million Iraqi children an acceptable cost, or oversee the
first inverted debt jubilee in 2008 to forgive the liabilities of fraudsters by pauperizing
debtors.
The obvious answer is "very" and this applies pretty much to every major allegedly leftist
party in the western world.
The fact is that if you want to form a political party and take power, or even make good
careers, you have to find supporters and get them to vote for you. Historically, after the
growth of modern political parties, they differentiated themselves by reference to social and
economic groups. In most countries there was a traditionalist party, often rural, with links
to church and aristocracy and the socially conservative, a middle-class professional/small
business party and a mass working class party often under middle-class leadership. Depending
on the country, this could, in practice, be more than three or less than three distinct
parties.
Once you abandon class-based politics, and all parties accept the neoliberal
consensus, you still have the problem of attracting support. You can only do that by turning
to the politics of identity, as practised in Africa or the Balkans, where you seek to corral
entire groups to vote for you, based on ethnicity, skin colour etc. The problem is that
whilst the old political distinctions were objective, the new ones are much more subjective,
overlapping and sometimes in conflict with each other. After all, you are objectively
employed or unemployed, a shareholder or landowner or not, an employee or an employer, you
have debt or savings, you earn enough to live on or you don't. It's therefore easier to
construct political parties on that basis than on the basis of ascriptive, overlapping and
conflicting subjective identities.
Modern parties of the "Left" have taken over the methods, if not the ideology, of the
old Communist parties, which is to say they present themselves as natural leaders, whom the
membership should follow and vote for. This worked well enough when the markers were
economic, much less well when they are identity based. Trying to herd together middle-class
professional socially-liberal voters, and immigrants from a socially conservative background
afraid of losing their jobs backfired disastrously for the Socialist party in the 2017
elections in France, and effectively destroyed the party. People don't like being instructed
who it is their duty to vote for.
The other very clarifying moment of that election was the complete absence, up and down
the western world, of voices supporting Marine Le Pen for President. Not a single voice was
raised in her support, although her victory would have been epoch-making in terms of French
politics, and certainly not Albright's.
That tells you everything you need to know, really.
Readers should examine the recent book Asymmetric Politics. The key point is that the
Democratic Party is as described by David in some fair part an identity-based party, so it is
supported by, e.g., many African-Americans. The Republican Party, unusual in the Western
World, is not an identity based party; it is an idea-based party. It may not be very good at
putting its ideas into effect, but it is an idea-based party that anyone can support.
Note that many Democrats are totally terrified by the idea that the Republican Party would
become an identity-based party, namely the white people's party, because if the white vote
supported the Republicans nationally the way it already does in the south the Democrats
would, in the immortal words of Donald Trump, be schlonged.
Indeed, that support is now
advancing up through the Appalachians into central Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier of New
York. West Virginia was once heavily Democratic.
And while some Democrats propose that
America is becoming a majority-minority country, others have worked out that, e.g., persons
of Hispanic or Chinese ancestry may over several generations follow the Irish and the
Italians and the Hungarians and the Jews, none of whom were originally viewed* as being
white, by being reclassified in the popular mind as being part of the white majority.
*Some readers will recall that quaint phrase "the colored races of Europe". At the time, a
century and then a fair amount ago, it was meant literally. Anglo-Saxons were a race.
Irishmen were a distinct race.
The Republicans are an "ideas-based" party? Well, I guess if you consider the interest-motivated "product" of Overclass-funded think
tanks to be "idea-based," then OK. Me, I've haven't seen the Republicans as anything other than a class and (white)
race-based party since I was a youth half a century ago.
That Republicans will distract, misdirect and dissemble to mask their class and race-based
identity doesn't change the reality of it.
As for the cynicism of how the Democrats use identity politics: granted. Nevertheless,
African-Americans have some tangible and valid reasons for voting for them, awful as they
are.
Dyson neatly derailed the whole thing with his 'mean white man' line. Could have just been
Fry vs Goldberg too, Peterson talked past the others yhe whole time.
Whole thing deserves a do-over.
I'm really worried about a repeat of 2016 with a heavy dose of voter purges and
reregistrations. Ocasio-Cortez will need a strong GOTV ground game to pull off the upset.
Cuomo may be part of a political dynasty, but I recall that when Mario Cuomo was sending
out feelers about running for president, there was plenty of "Who's the furriner?" I can't
find the quote, but some Southern politician opined that there weren't many Marios and fewer
Cuomos in the South. (And when Geraldine Ferraro was on the ticket with Mondale, journalists
and columnists "miraculously" discovered that her husband was a mafioso.) So there's white
and there's white.
Not that I'd vote for Cuomo. And I certainly agree with Glenn Greenwald. But ethnic
politics cut all different ways.
Come on, folks. By now you should have learned that what politicians say doesn't mean a
damn thing -- it's what they do. The establishment is only interested in perpetuating the
establishment.
Here in Pennsylvania, Republican senator Pat Toomey has stayed in office only because the
Dem establishment here has refused to back Joe Sestak, a terrific but rebellious candidate,
for years. Last time around, it endorsed a woman over Sestak and another fantastic male
candidate–but she was as crappy as they come. As far as I've seen, they trot out
identity politics only when it suits their aims and it has nothing to do with what the voters
actually want.
If Sestak and his supporters started a little Third Party just for Pennsylvania, how many
votes would he get? If he and his supporters called it the Revenge Against Betrayal Party,
how many votes would he get?
Identity politics are to Democrats what religious politics are to Republicans: A pious
high ground they use whenever they want to denounce anyone opposed to them as corrupt and
immoral, but immediately gets shelved the moment it interferes with the money and power.
To me, it's a dishonest policy erasure tactic for favoring establishment candidates. If
you're against Hillary Clinton, it's must be because she's a woman, not because
she's, say, a neoliberal, corporatist warmonger -- it deliberately supplants legitimate
policy differences with identity. Not only is it breathtakingly dopey as a psychological
theory -- because it's pretty obvious that someone could oppose a person based on
those policy differences -- it's also obnoxiously presumptuous: "I'm going to substitute my
statements as to motivation for yours." None of that matters, of course, as long as the work
of erasing policy from the discourse is done.
And while it surely matters who is in congress and who sits in the oval office, possibly
we should all become more focused and engaged with system change rather than just individuals
running for office. (although damn am I impressed with Alexandria's keen appreciation of
democracy), To that end I offer ideas from the brain of Gar Alperovitz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1-Ss5h9F9k
Thank you, Lee. About a quarter of the way through Gar's talk and may need to take a
little rest to let my soul catch up. For me, in my community which is being hard hit by
gentrification and rents are, for many long-time residents, becoming unaffordable, this might
be the exactly the right ideas at the right time. Tomorrow I will be going to the last
meeting of our neighbourhood food co-op as it dissolves, after 10 years, and I can't decide
whether I am more angry or sad. It was well-intentioned, but just couldn't make it work.
Perhaps a bad plan, or maybe no systematic plan at all. Anyway. I never really expected to
see my $1000 again when I bought that bond 10 years ago.
Meantime, I will listen to Gar finish his talk, and pro'ly get his book from the
library.
So here is Gar talking about the Evergreen Co-ops of Cleveland: "That is a
community-building, wealth-democratizing, decentralized, combination of community and worker
ownership, supported by quasi-public procurement, through a planning system using
quasi-public moneys. That is a planning system. {It} begins with a vision of community which
starts by democratizing as far as you can from the ground up, building capacity at the
national level or the regional level, to purchase and thereby stabilize the system in a form
of economic planning. Now think about those things. Those are ideas in a fragmentary
developmental process as the pain of the system grows and there are no other solutions. "
It is strong stuff, but reading it seems dense and dull, but Gar makes it all make sense
on first hearing. So, in anyone interested in community economic action, do check it out.
Of course the most important identity is that of the worker, the person who must sell
their labor power in the marketplace to survive. But you will rarely hear the Democrats
discuss that identity. You might hear about "working families" and the "middle class" but it
really means nothing. The Republicans use the same language and they are just as
mendacious.
I wouldn't mind the slogans and euphemisms if there was some substance behind them. I get
that Americans generally like to think of themselves as "middle class" whether they are
making minimum wage or millions of dollars but at least put some substance behind your
rhetoric.
Both parties are using identity politics to win elections while avoiding the economic
issues that every poll indicates Americans care about the most. The result is an increasingly
disillusioned and depressed population that hates the entire political system. Almost half of
the eligible electorate stays home during election years. Non-voters tend to be poorer while
the political junkies who are increasingly shrill, angry and unreasonable tend to be
wealthier. These are the people who form the base for identity politics because they have the
luxury to worry about such nonsense.
Working families: Groups of people related genetically or by choice, all of whom,
regardless of age, have to work to ensure they have food, clothing, and shelter.
"It's about the children " Madeline Albright, when asked about 500,000+ dead Iraqi children caused by the sanctions
she promoted said "We think the price was worth it " When will this nauseating hag slink off the public stage?
https://fair.org/extra/we-think-the-price-is-worth-it/
An average person with their limited lifespan can barely manage a quota of about a dozen
people to truly care about and about 70 to be acquainted with. Chances of any of those
belonging to some of those special category people are low to the point of it being
irrelevant and worthless to get acquainted with the categories themselves and their
cultures/language, unless they live in a few congregation capitals on this planet like San
Francisco, capitals which can be numbered on both my hands.
Unless the average person decides for themselves to care, trying to convince them to care
about special identity is tantamount to attempting to rob them of their precious lifespan,
over what? Superficial identities. There are religions which worship the supernatural. Now
there's a religion which worships the superficial called Identity Politics or Social Justice
Evangelism as i like to call it (as usual it has about as much to do with social justice as
Christianity had to do with world peace, and all to do with identity masturbation), arisen
jointly as a result of inflated and growing narcissism and unwarranted sense of
self-importance personality disorders influenced by spending too much time on social media
such as Facebook and Twitter.
Bah. Western Democrats focus too much on a minority which has barely any impact on the
economy at the expense of the majority which actually dictates the general economic trend and
therefore also creates the byproduct welfare/life quality of all the meme minorities to whom
it trickles down. That's the issue here. The difference between normal people and minorities
is that normal people know they don't matter in the larger picture, while minorities think
they matter while at the same time asking to be treated as part of the normal people even
though their very mentality is a paradox towards being normal.
The West is simply too
bankrupt on things that matter in the bigger picture and too involved in things that don't, a
complete lack of prioritization.
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
An interesting new term is used in this discussion: "CIA democrats". Probably originated in Patrick Martin March 7, 2018
article at WSWS The CIA Democrats Part one - World Socialist Web
Site but I would not draw an equivalence between military and intelligence agencies.
"f the Democrats capture a majority in the House of Representatives on November 6, as widely predicted, candidates drawn from
the military-intelligence apparatus will comprise as many as half of the new Democratic members of Congress."
Notable quotes:
"... @leveymg ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... @CS in AZ ..."
"... "I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then." ..."
The left has never been welcome in the Republican party; and since the neoliberal Clinton machine showed up, they have not
been welcome in the Democratic party either. As Clinton debauched the historical, FDR/JFK/LBJ meaning of the word "liberal",
the left started calling itself "progressives". The left had long been the grassroots of the Democratic party; and after being
left in the lurch by John Kerry (no lawsuits against Ohio fraud), lied to by Barack Obama, and browbeaten by the increasingly
neocon Clintonite DNC, they enthusiastically coalesced around Bernie Sanders.
If our political system were honest, Bernie Sanders would have been the Democratic nominee; and Hillary Clinton and Debbie
W-S (of Aman Brothers infamy) would be on trial for violating national security and corrupting the DNC. But, our political
system isn't honest. Our political system, including the Democratic party, is completely bought and
paid for. And, unfortunately, Bernie Sanders - despite being a victim of that corruption - continues to refuse to make that point.
He refused to join the lawsuit (complete with dead process server and suspicious phone call from DWS's office) against the DNC.
All in the name of working within a party he does not even belong to.
After the 2016 election, the DNC, continuing its corrupt ways, blatantly favored Tom Perez over the "progressive" Keith Ellison,
smearing Ellison as a Moslem lover. Bernie's reaction to this continuing manipulation was muted. On foreign policy, Bernie continues
to be either AWOL or pro-MIC (F-35 plant in VT)/pro-Israel. These are not progressive positiions. AFAIAC, Bernie is half a leftist.
He is left on economics and social policy; but he is rightwing on the MIC, foreign policy, and Israel. There is very little democracy
left in this country, and I am not going to waste my time supporting Bernie, who has shown himself to be a sheepdog. That's my
take on the 2018 version of Bernie. I will always treasure the early 2016 version of Bernie, the only political candidate in my
life that I gave serious money to.
Neither will I waste my time pretending that honest, inside-the-system efforts can take the Democratic party back from the
plutocrats who own it, lock, stock, and checkbook. You might think there is a chance to work inside the system. You might think
the DNC is vulnerable because it learned nothing from the 2016 debacle; but you would be wrong. After the Hillary debacle, they
have learned how to manufacture more credible fake progressives.
------
For it seems that progressive candidates aren't the only ones who learned the lesson of Bernie Sanders in 2016; the neoliberal
Clintonites have too. So, while left-wing campaigns crop up in every corner of the country, so too do astroturf faux-progressive
campaigns. And it is for us on the left to parse through it all and separate the authentic from the frauds.
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat"
whose campaign website homepage describes him as a "local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization
of former Bernie Sanders staffers, the Justice Democrats." And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself
as one of the inheritors of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency
in Arabic and knowledge of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the
Clinton Administration.
Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an
influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity
in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials
in Iraq were "looking to help our country find a way out" a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make
billions off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out. Another thing he has not called out is the fact that the
party leadership is still blatantly sabotaging even modestly "progressive" candidates in the primaries.
In the latest striking example of how the Democratic Party resorts to cronyism (and perhaps corruption) to ensure that its
favored candidates beat back progressive challengers in local races, a candidate for Colorado's 6th Congressional District
has leaked a recording of a conversation with Minority Leader Steny Hoyer to The Intercept which published it overnight. In
it, Hoyer can be heard essentially lecturing the candidate about why he should step aside and let the Democratic Party
bosses - who of course have a better idea about which candidate will prevail over a popular Republican in the general
election - continue pulling the strings.
The candidate, Levi Tillemann, is hardly a party outsider. Tillemann had grandparents on both sides of his family who were
elected Democratic representatives, and his family is essentially Democratic Party royalty.
Still, the party's campaign arm - the notorious Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (better known as the DCCC, or
D-trip) - refused to provide Tillemann with access to party campaign data or any of the other resources he requested.
Here is yet another thing that Bernie has not called out: The DNC, which is reportedly badly behind in fundraising, is nevertheless
willing to spend obscene amounts of money in primaries just to keep progressives out of races - even Red district races that are
guaranteed losses for Democrats.
Dan Feehan has successfully bought the Democratic nomination for Minnesota's first congressional district (MN-CD1). Dan,
having lived outside the state since the age of 14, has allegedly misled the public on his FEC form, claiming residence at
his cousin's address. Here is Dan's FEC filing form. One can see that it his cousin who lives at this address...
Mr. Feehan has no chance to win in November. While nobody likes a candidate from Washington D.C., people
hate Washington money even more. To be fair to Dan he hasn't taken super PAC money, somehow. But he
has raised 565,000 dollars, an outrageous sum for a congressional race. 94% of this money has come from outside the district,
and 79% from outside the state. Where does this money come from? Well, according to the campaign, from people around
the country who want to keep Minnesota blue. If this was the case, why not wait to give money until Minnesota voted
for a candidate in the primary and then donate? And who on earth has this much money to pour into an obscure race outside of
their state?
Dan Feehan is of the same breed that most post-Trump Democrats are. Clean cut, military experience,
stern, anti-gun, anti-crazy Orange monsters, anti-negativity, and anti-discrimination of rich people who fall under a marginalized
group. What are they for? No one knows. If pushed they want "good" education, health care, jobs, environment,
etc. But they want Big money too for various reasons, but the ones cited are: because that is the only way to win,
because rich people are smart and poor people are dumb, and because money is speech. So they cannot and will not make
any concrete commitments. Hence energy becomes "all inclusive", as if balancing clean and dirty energy was a college admissions
department diversity issue, rather than a question of life or death for the entire planet. Healthcare becomes not a right,
but a requirement with a giant handout to insurance companies. Near full employment (with the near being very important, when
we consider leverage) comes with part-time, short-term, and low paying work.
The Clintonite Democrats and their spawn are postmodern progressives. In their world, there is no way to test if one is progressive.
Within the world of the Democratic party, there is no relativity. It is merely a universe that exists only to clash with (but
mostly submit to) the parallel Republican universe. Whoever proves to be the victor should be united behind without a thought
given to their place within the political spectrum of Democrat voters. They believe, if I were to paraphrase René Descartes:
"I Democrat, therefore I progressive."
Tell me again why I must be a loyal Democrat, why I must support candidates who are corporate/MIC shills, why I must submit
to the constant harassment and sabotage of progressive efforts. Tell me again how Bernie is fighting the party leadership. (That
is, explain away all the non-activity related to the items posted above.)
I'm with Chris Hedges. Formal democracy is dead in the US; all we have left are actions in the streets (and those are being
slowly made illegal). The only people in this country who deserve my support are: 1) the striking teachers, many of them non-unionized,
2) the oil pipeline protestors, who are being crushed by police state tactics, 3) the fighters for $15 minimum wage, again non-unionized.
The Democratic Party used to stand for unions. It doesn't any more. It doesn't stand for anything except getting more money from
the 1% to sell out the 99% with fake progressive CIA candidates. Oh, and it stands for pussy hats.
Anyone who tells me to get in line behind Bernie is either a naive pollyana or a disingenuous purity troll.
leveymg on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 9:44am
We have all been here before. 1948.
That was the year that the clawback of the Democratic Party and the purge of the Left was formalized. It really dates to the engineered
hijacking of the nomination of Henry Wallace at the 1944 Democratic Convention. History does repeat itself for those who didn't
learn or weren't adequately taught it.
however tragic it is. Instead of a true leftwinger, we got Harry Truman, a naive wardheeler from corrupt Kansas City. He was
led by the nose to create the CIA.
I do take your point; but the question is, can anything be done? If democracy has become meaningless kabuki, and the neocon
warmongers are in charge no matter whom we "elect", what is there to do besides build that bomb shelter?
That is why I say that only genuine issues will galvanize the public; and even then, they can run a hybrid war against the
left. They have created this ludicrous Identity Politics boogeyman that energizes the right and makes the postmodern progressives
look stupid. No matter what tactic I think of, TPTB have already covered that base. The problem is that the left has absolutely
no base in the U.S. today.
How will the pseudo-progressives be able to justify being both "progressive" and pro-war?
Talk about cognitive dissonance. But wait. Democraps of any stripe, don't cogitate, hence no dissonance.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 10:12am
Appreciate you posting this essay This
is only one of the many troubling signs which convince me he is being controlled by my enemy.
The takeaway here is that many of these self-declared "Bernie Democrats" are, in reality, the "CIA Democrats" that we have
been warned about. And Bernie has not called them out.
CS in AZ on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:12am
Thanks for the essay, arendt I came
to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long
ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron. Seriously,
you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not your place."
True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming on
some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am zoebear on Sat, 04/28/2018 - 11:45am
Countered with Russia, Russia, Russia. God he was such a prick.
I came to this site in the great purge at daily kos, and I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come
a very long ways since then. Thanks to the people here.
And to kos, who now rather infamously said "if you think Hillary Clinton can't beat Donald Trump, you're a fucking moron.
Seriously, you're dumb as rocks." And he said if you're not going to cheerlead for democrats, "go the fuck away. This is not
your place." True words!!
So this site was here and Bernie supporters flocked here. Including me. But over this time I have seen the mistakes I made.
Such a lot of wasted time and energy.
Still searching for answers myself, but I know what doesn't work, and how important for the status quo to keep the illusion
of democracy alive. But more and more people are not buying it anymore. I suspect that a few more crumbs will be forthcoming
on some issues. That's the very best way to keep the show going. And the show must go on.
Pulling back the curtain is really the first and most important weapon we have. Thank you for doing that.
That's how I feel about it. I've been suckered one time too many. The 2016 election was a complete farce. Bernie was sabotaged.
The DNC and Hillary broke their own rules to do it. But Bernie, with a perfect opportunity and lots of support, just walked away
from the fight that he had promised his people.
Sheep dog.
TPTB want the political "fight" to be between slightly different flavors of neoliberal looting/neocon warmongering. They want
unions, teachers, environmentalists, and minorities to, in the words of a UK asshole, "shut up and go away".
The CIA literally paid $600M to the Washington Post, whose purchase price was only $300M. Bezos made 200% of his money back
in a month. The media is completely corporatized; and they are coming for the internet with censorship. Where is Bernie on this?
Haven't heard a word.
Sheep dog.
As TPTB simply buy what is left of the Democratic party, they will enforce this kabuki politics. Any deviation will be labeled
Putin-loving, Assad-loving, China-loving, etc.
You can't have a democracy when free speech is instantly labeled fake news or enemy propaganda.
"I was truly fired up about Bernie Sanders at that time. I've come a very long ways since then."
This is how I see the way some people feel about him. This same thing happened after I voted for Obama. I thought that he would
do what "I heard him say that he would", but he let me down by not even bothering to try doing anything.
What soured me on Bernie was his saying that Her won the election fair and square after everything we saw happen. Even after
learning how the primary was rigged against him. And now he has jumped on the Russian interference propaganda train when he knows
that Russia had no hand with Trump beating Her out the presidency.
Bottom line is that I no longer believe that Bernie is being up front with me. I know that others feel differently, but remember
how people changed their minds on Obama and never accepted Herheinous! People should be free here to say how they feel.
Isn't making it "easier" for them to cheat when they are already doing that. What participating in their corruption does do
is keep the illusion of democracy alive for their benefit. Easier? They're already achieving their end game. Controlling us, electing
their candidates, and collecting our taxes.
Frankly we've been participating in their potemkin village passing as democracy for decades with no effect.
First, a boycott is not "ignoring" voting. It's an organized protest against fake elections. It's actually not that uncommon
for people in other countries to call for election boycotts in protest when a significant portion of people feel the election
is staged or rigged with a predetermined outcome, or where all of the candidates are chosen by the elite so none represent the
will of the people.
In that type of situation, boycotting the election -- and obviously that means saying why, and making a protest out of it --
is really the only recourse people have. It may not be effective at stopping the fake election, but it lets the world know the
vote was fake.
If you line up to go obediently cast your vote anyway, then you are the one who is empowering the enemy, by giving the illusion
of legitimacy to the fake vote.
Now about this big worry about what "they" will say... first, look at what they already say about third party voters.
In the media and political world, third party voters are a joke, useful idiots, who can be simultaneously written off as "fringe"
wackos who can and should be ignored, and also childish spoilers who can be scapegoated and blamed for eternity for election loses.
Witness Ralph Nader and Jill Stein. Of course people should still vote third party if there's someone that truly represents them,
and if they believe the election process is genuine. Because you don't let your voting choices be dictated by what the powers
that be say about it!
For those of us who believe the election process is a sham and a scam, voting is playing into their hands, giving legitimacy
to their show. That is what makes it easier for them to keep the status quo firmly in place, and is literally helping them do
it.
As has been pointed out, if an organized protest/boycott that called the elections fake were to take root and grow, they would
not be able to say we don't care. That's a big if, obviously, but it's better than playing your assigned role in The Voting Show.
Because that show is what everyone points to as proof that the American people want this fucked up warmongering government we
keep voting back into power every two years.
Enough is enough. One of Bernie's slogans, which I still agree with.
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies. ..."
"... the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies. ..."
"... The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule. ..."
"... But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils. ..."
In a three-part series published last week,
the World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and military operatives into the Democratic
Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant seats and those with Republican
incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant swing to the Democrats.
... ... ...
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA,
NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus.
This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts"
for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while essentially ignoring Trump's attacks
on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs
like Medicaid and food stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the agenda of the
military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the
intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen
candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation
with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its
operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that
score. A chorus of media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire editorial board
of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip
up support on alleged "human rights" grounds for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers
to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic
Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining
the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence
operatives running in the Democratic primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat experience
invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on their websites. And they are welcomed and given
preferred positions, with Democratic Party officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand, the Republican Trump administration
has more military generals in top posts than any other previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened
its doors to a "friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an expression of the breakdown of
American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose
interests the state apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working class, the ruling class
is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right policies. But it is impossible to carry
out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx
of military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade unions and pseudo-left groups, that
the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary, working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the
corporate-controlled two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"The Democratic Party is better than the Republican Party in the way that manslaughter is
slightly better than murder: It might seem like a lesser crime, but the victim can't really
tell the difference." -- Michael Harriot
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. "
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
Notable quotes:
"... For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear war. ..."
"... First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state. ..."
"... Secondly, Western elites pillaged the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. ..."
"... Thirdly, the US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent "election" of Yeltsin. ..."
"... With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US. ..."
"... As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war. ..."
"... Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to return to vassalage. ..."
"... The Western regimes recognize that Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the EU, North America or their vassals. ..."
"... Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other Western allies. ..."
For the greater part of a decade the US, the UK and the EU have been carrying out a
campaign to undermine and overthrow the Russian government and in particular to oust President
Putin. Fundamental issues are at stake including the real possibility of a nuclear
war.
The most recent western propaganda campaign and one of the most virulent is the charge
launched by the UK regime of Prime Minister Theresa May . The Brits have claimed that Russian
secret agents conspired to poison a former Russian double-agent and his daughter in England ,
threatening the sovereignty and safety of the British people. No evidence has ever been
presented. Instead the UK expelled Russian diplomats and demands harsher sanctions, to increase
tensions. The UK and its US and EU patrons are moving toward a break in relations and a
military build-up.
A number of fundamental questions arise regarding the origins and growing intensity of this
anti-Russian animus.
Why do the Western regimes now feel Russia is a greater threat then in the past? Do they
believe Russia is more vulnerable to Western threats or attacks? Why do the Western military
leaders seek to undermine Russia's defenses? Do the US economic elites believe it is possible
to provoke an economic crisis and the demise of President Putin's government? What is the
strategic goal of Western policymakers? Why has the UK regime taken the lead in the
anti-Russian crusade via the fake toxin accusations at this time?
This paper is directed at providing key elements to address these questions.
The Historical Context for Western Aggression
Several fundamental historical factors dating back to the 1990's account for the current
surge in Western hostility to Russia.
First and foremost, during the 1990's the US degraded Russia, reducing it to a vassal
state, and imposing itself as a unipolar state.Secondly, Western elites pillaged
the Russian economy, seizing and laundering hundreds of billions of dollars. Wall Street
and City of London banks and overseas tax havens were the main beneficiaries Thirdly, the
US seized and took control of the Russian electoral process, and secured the fraudulent
"election" of Yeltsin. Fourthly, the West degraded Russia's military and scientific
institutions and advanced their armed forces to Russia's borders. Fifthly, the West insured
that Russia was unable to support its allies and independent governments throughout Europe,
Asia, Africa and Latin America. Russia was unable to aid its allies in the Ukraine, Cuba,
North Korea, Libya etc.
With the collapse of the Yeltsin regime and the election of President Putin, Russia
regained its sovereignty, its economy recovered, its armed forces and scientific institutes
were rebuilt and strengthened. Poverty was sharply reduced and Western backed gangster
capitalists were constrained, jailed or fled mostly to the UK and the US.
Russia's historic recovery under President Putin and its gradual international influence
shattered US pretense to rule over unipolar world. Russia's recovery and control of its
economic resources lessened US dominance, especially of its oil and gas fields.
As Russia consolidated its sovereignty and advanced economically, socially, politically and
militarily, the West increased its hostility in an effort to roll-back Russia to the Dark Ages
of the 1990's. The US launched numerous coups and military intervention and fraudulent
elections to surround and isolate Russia . The Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and Russian
allies in Central Asia were targeted. NATO military bases proliferated.
Russia's economy was targeted : sanctions were directed at its imports and exports.
President Putin was subject to a virulent Western media propaganda campaign. US NGO's funded
opposition parties and politicians.
As the entire US unipolar fantasy dissolved it provoked deep resentment, animosity and a
systematic counter-attack. The US's costly and failed war on terror became a dress rehearsal
for the economic and ideological war against the Kremlin ..Russia's historical recovery and
defeat of Western rollback intensified the ideological and economic war.
The UK poison plot was concocted to heighten economic tensions and prepare the western
public for heightened military confrontations.
Russia is not a threat to the West: it is recovering its sovereignty in order to further
a multi-polar world. President Putin is not an "aggressor" but he refuses to allow Russia to
return to vassalage.
President Putin is immensely popular in Russia and hated by the US precisely because he is
the opposition of Yeltsin -- he has created a flourishing economy; he resists sanctions and
defends Russia's borders and allies.
Conclusion
In a summary response to the opening questions.
The Western regimes recognize that
Russia is a threat to their global dominance; they know that Russia is no threat to invade the
EU, North America or their vassals.Western regimes believe they can topple Russia via
economic warfare including sanctions. In fact Russia has become more self-reliant and has
diversified its trading partners, especially China, and even includes Saudi Arabia and other
Western allies.
The Western propaganda campaign has failed to turn Russian voters against Putin. In the
March 19, 2018 Presidential election voter participation increased to 67% . .Vladimir Putin
secured a record 77% majority. President Putin is politically stronger than ever.
Russia's display of advanced nuclear and other advanced weaponry has had a major deterrent
effect especially among US military leaders, making it clear that Russia is not vulnerable to
attack.
The UK has attempted to unify and gain importance with the EU and the US via the launch of
its anti-Russia toxic conspiracy. Prime Minister May has failed. Brexit will force the UK to
break with the EU.
President Trump will not replace the EU as a substitute trading partner. While the EU and
Washington may back the UK crusade against Russia they will pursue their own trade agenda;
which do not include the UK.
In a word, the UK, the EU and the US are ganging-up on Russia, for diverse historic and
contemporary reasons. The UK exploitation of the anti-Russian conspiracy is a temporary ploy to
join the gang but will not change its inevitable global decline and the break-up of the UK.
Russia will remain a global power. It will continue under the leadership of President Putin.
The Western powers will divide and bugger their neighbors -- and decide it is their better
judgment to accept and work within a multi-polar world.
*
Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the CRG.
"... If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. ..."
"... Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation, assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice. ..."
"... The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD; ..."
"... Operation Mockingbird, in which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century. ..."
"... The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated." ..."
"... The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies, backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies glorifying American spies and assassins ..."
"... The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks . ..."
"... This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine. ..."
"... The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. ..."
"... The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are "former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however, purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments. ..."
In a three-part series published last week, the
World Socialist Web Site documented an unprecedented influx of intelligence and
military operatives into the Democratic Party. More than 50 such military-intelligence
candidates are seeking the Democratic nomination in the 102 districts identified by the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee as its targets for 2018. These include both vacant
seats and those with Republican incumbents considered vulnerable in the event of a significant
swing to the Democrats.
If on November 6 the Democratic Party makes the net gain of 24 seats needed to win control
of the House of Representatives, former CIA agents, military commanders, and State Department
officials will provide the margin of victory and hold the balance of power in Congress. The
presence of so many representatives of the military-intelligence apparatus in the legislature
is a situation without precedent in the history of the United States.
Since its establishment in 1947 -- under the administration of Democratic President Harry
Truman -- the CIA has been legally barred from carrying out within the United States the
activities which were its mission overseas: spying, infiltration, political provocation,
assassination. These prohibitions were given official lip service but ignored in practice.
In the wake of the Watergate crisis and the forced resignation of President Richard Nixon,
reporter Seymour Hersh published the first devastating exposure of the CIA domestic spying, in
an investigative report for the New York Times on December 22, 1974. This report
triggered the establishment of the Rockefeller Commission, a White House effort at damage
control, and Senate and House select committees, named after their chairmen, Senator Frank
Church and Representative Otis Pike, which conducted hearings and made serious attempts to
investigate and expose the crimes of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
The Church Committee in particular featured the exposure of CIA assassination plots against
foreign leaders like Fidel Castro, Patrice Lumumba in the Congo, General Rene Schneider in
Chile, and many others. More horrors were uncovered: MK-Ultra, in which the CIA secretly
subjected unwitting victims to experimentation with drugs like LSD;
Operation Mockingbird, in
which the CIA recruited journalists to plant stories and smear opponents; Operation Chaos, an
effort to spy on the antiwar movement and sow disruption; Operation Shamrock, under which the
telecommunications companies shared traffic with the NSA for more than a quarter century.
The Church and Pike committee exposures, despite their limitations, had a devastating
political effect. The CIA and its allied intelligence organizations in the Pentagon and NSA
became political lepers, reviled as the enemies of democratic rights. The CIA in particular was
widely viewed as "Murder Incorporated."
In that period, it would have been unthinkable either for dozens of "former"
military-intelligence operatives to participate openly in electoral politics, or for them to be
welcomed and even recruited by the two corporate-controlled parties. The Democrats and
Republicans sought to distance themselves, at least for public relations purposes, from the spy
apparatus, while the CIA publicly declared that it would no longer recruit or pay American
journalists to publish material originating in Langley, Virginia. Even in the 1980s, the
Iran-Contra scandal involved the exposure of the illegal operations of the Reagan
administration's CIA director, William Casey.
How times have changed. One of the main functions of the "war on terror," launched in the
wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, has been to
rehabilitate the US spy apparatus and give it a public relations makeover as the supposed
protector of the American people against terrorism.
This meant disregarding the well-known connections between Osama bin Laden and other Al
Qaeda leaders and the CIA, which recruited them for the anti-Soviet guerrilla war in
Afghanistan, waged from 1979 to 1989, as well as the still unexplained role of the US
intelligence agencies in facilitating the 9/11 attacks themselves.
The last 15 years have seen a massive expansion of the CIA and other intelligence agencies,
backed by an avalanche of media propaganda, with endless television programs and movies
glorifying American spies and assassins ( 24 , Homeland , Zero Dark
Thirty , etc.)
The American media has been directly recruited to this effort. Judith Miller of the New
York Times , with her reports on "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, is only the most
notorious of the stable of "plugged-in" intelligence-connected journalists at the
Times , the Washington Post , and the major television networks. More
recently, the Times has installed as its editorial page editor James Bennet, brother
of a Democratic senator and son of the former administrator of the Agency for International
Development, which has been accused of working as a front for the operations of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
The media campaign alleging Russian intervention in the 2016 US elections has been based
entirely on handouts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, transmitted by reporters who are either
unwitting stooges or conscious agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This has been
accompanied by the recruitment of a cadre of top CIA and military officials to serve as highly
paid "experts" and "analysts" for the television networks .
In centering its opposition to Trump on the bogus allegations of Russian interference, while
essentially ignoring Trump's attacks on immigrants and democratic rights, his alignment with
ultra-right and white supremacist groups, his attacks on social programs like Medicaid and food
stamps, and his militarism and threats of nuclear war, the Democratic Party has embraced the
agenda of the military-intelligence apparatus and sought to become its main political
voice.
This process was well under way in the administration of Barack Obama, which endorsed and
expanded the various operations of the intelligence agencies abroad and within the United
States. Obama's endorsed successor, Hillary Clinton, ran openly as the chosen candidate of the
Pentagon and CIA, touting her toughness as a future commander-in-chief and pledging to escalate
the confrontation with Russia, both in Syria and Ukraine.
The CIA has spearheaded the anti-Russia campaign against Trump in large part because of
resentment over the disruption of its operations in Syria, and it has successfully used the
campaign to force a shift in the policy of the Trump administration on that score. A chorus of
media backers -- Nicholas Kristof and Roger Cohen of the New York Times , the entire
editorial board of the Washington Post , most of the television networks -- are part
of the campaign to pollute public opinion and whip up support on alleged "human rights" grounds
for an expansion of the US war in Syria.
The 2018 election campaign marks a new stage: for the first time, military-intelligence
operatives are moving in large numbers to take over a political party and seize a major role in
Congress. The dozens of CIA and military veterans running in the Democratic Party primaries are
"former" agents of the military-intelligence apparatus. This "retired" status is, however,
purely nominal. Joining the CIA or the Army Rangers or the Navy SEALs is like joining the
Mafia: no one ever actually leaves; they just move on to new assignments.
The CIA operation in 2018 is unlike its overseas activities in one major respect: it is not
covert. On the contrary, the military-intelligence operatives running in the Democratic
primaries boast of their careers as spies and special ops warriors. Those with combat
experience invariably feature photographs of themselves in desert fatigues or other uniforms on
their websites. And they are welcomed and given preferred positions, with Democratic Party
officials frequently clearing the field for their candidacies.
The working class is confronted with an extraordinary political situation. On the one hand,
the Republican Trump administration has more military generals in top posts than any other
previous government. On the other hand, the Democratic Party has opened its doors to a
"friendly takeover" by the intelligence agencies.
The incredible power of the military-intelligence agencies over the entire government is an
expression of the breakdown of American democracy. The central cause of this breakdown is the
extreme concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite, whose interests the state
apparatus and its "bodies of armed men" serve. Confronted by an angry and hostile working
class, the ruling class is resorting to ever more overt forms of authoritarian rule.
Millions of working people want to fight the Trump administration and its ultra-right
policies. But it is impossible to carry out this fight through the "axis of evil" that connects
the Democratic Party, the bulk of the corporate media, and the CIA. The influx of
military-intelligence candidates puts paid to the longstanding myth, peddled by the trade
unions and pseudo-left groups, that the Democrats represent a "lesser evil." On the contrary,
working people must confront the fact that within the framework of the corporate-controlled
two-party system, they face two equally reactionary evils.
"... This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war." ..."
"... The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation on its borders in Ukraine. ..."
"... On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash, it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's because the system itself encouraged those inflows. ..."
"... "Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it really doesn't need a standalone military anyway. ..."
"... From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who inspected the premises. ..."
"... There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen other people at the same time. ..."
"... The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian! ..."
Mark Rice-Oxley,
Guardian columnist and the first in line to fight in WWIII.
The alleged poisoning of ex-MI6 agent Sergei Skripal has caused the Russophobic MSM to go into overdrive. Nowhere is the desperation
with which the Skripal case has been seized more obvious than the Guardian. Luke Harding is spluttering incoherently about a
weapons lab that might not even exist anymore . Simon Jenkins gamely takes up his position as the only rational person left at
the Guardian, before being heckled in the comments and dismissed as a contrarian by Michael White on twitter. More and more the media
are becoming a home for dangerous, aggressive, confrontational rhetoric that has no place in sensible, adult newspapers.
Oh, Russia! Even before we point fingers over poison and speculate about secret agents and spy swaps and pub food in Salisbury,
one thing has become clear: Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war.
Read this. It's from a respected "unbiased", liberal news outlet. It is the worst, most partisan political language I have ever
heard, more heated and emotionally charged than even the most fraught moments of the Cold War. It is dangerous to the whole planet,
and has no place in our media.
If everything he said in the following article were true, if he had nothing but noble intentions and right on his side, this would
still be needlessly polarizing and war-like language.
To make it worse, everything he proceeds to say is a complete lie.
Usually we would entitle these pieces "fact checks", but this goes beyond that. This? This is a reality check.
Its agents pop over for murder and shopping
FALSE: There's no proof any of this ever happened. There has been no trial in the Litvinenko case. The
"public
inquiry" was a farce, with no cross-examination of witnesses, evidence given in secret and anonymous witnesses. All of which
contravene British law regarding a fair trial.
even while its crooks use Britain as a 24/7 laundromat for their ill-gotten billions, stolen from compatriots.
TRUE sort of: Russian billionaires do come to London, Paris, and Switzerland to launder their (stolen) money. Rice-Oxley is too
busy with his 2 minutes of hate to interrogate this issue. The reason oligarchs launder their money here is that WE let them. Oligarchs
have been fleeing Russia for over a decade. Why? Because, in Russia, Putin's government has jailed billionaires for tax evasion and
embezzling, stripped them of illegally acquired assets and demanded they pay their taxes. That's why you have wanted criminals like
Sergei Pugachev doing interviews with Luke Harding, complaining he's down to
his
"last 270 million" .
When was the last time a British billionaire was prosecuted for financial crimes? Mega-Corporations owe
literally billions in tax , and our government lets them
get away with it.
Its digital natives use their skills not for solving Russia's own considerable internal problems but to subvert the prosperous
adversaries that it secretly envies.
FALSE: Russiagate is a farce,
anyone with an open-mind can see that . The reference to Russians envying the west is childish and insulting. The 13, just thirteen,
Russians who were indicted by Mueller have no connection to the Russian government, a
nd allegedly
campaigned for many candidates , and both for and against Trump. They are a PR firm, nothing more.
It bought a World Cup,
FALSE: The World Cup bids are voted on, and after years and years of investigation the US/UK teams have found so little evidence
of corruption in the Russia bid that they simply stopped talking about it. If the FBI had found even the slightest hint of financial
malpractice, would we ever have stopped hearing about it?
Regarding the second "neighbour": Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are not at war. Ukraine has claimed to have been "invaded" by Russia
many times but has never declared war. Why? Because they rely on Russian gas to live, and because they know that if Russia were to
ever REALLY invade, the war would last only just a big longer than the Georgian one. The
"anti-terrorist operation" in Ukraine was started by the coup government in 2014. Since that time over 10,000 people have died.
The vast majority killed by the governments mercenaries and far-right militias many of whom
espouse outright fascism
.
bombed children to save a butcher in the Middle East.
MISLEADING: The statement is trying to paint Russia/Assad as deliberately targeting children, which is clearly untrue. Russia
is operating in Syria in full compliance with international law. Unlike literally everybody else bar Iran. When Russia entered the
conflict, at the invitation of the legitimate Syrian government, Jihadists were winning the war. ISIS had huge swathes of territory,
al-Qaeda affiliates had strongholds in all of Syria's major cities. Syria was on the brink of collapse. Rice-Oxley is unclear whether
or not he thinks this is a good thing.
Today, ISIS is obliterated, Aleppo is free
and the war is almost over. Apparently Syria becoming another Libya is preferable to a secular government winning a war against terrorists
and US-backed mercenaries.
And now it wants to start a new nuclear arms race.
FALSE: America started the arms race when they pulled out of the anti-ballistic missile treaty.
Putin warned at the time it was a dangerous move . America then moved their
AEGIS "defense
shield" into Eastern Europe . Giving them the possibility of first-strike without retaliation. This is an untennable position
for any country.
Putin warned, at the time, that Russia would have to respond. They have responded. Mr Rice-Oxley should take this up with Bush
and Cheney if he has a problem with it.
And before the whataboutists say, "America does some of that stuff too", that may be true, but just because the US is occasionally
awful it doesn't mean that Russia isn't.
MISLEADING: America doesn't do "some of that stuff". No, America aren't "occasionally awful". They do ALL of that stuff, and have
been the biggest destructive force on the planet for over 70 years. Since Putin came to power America has carried out aggressive
military operations against Pakistan, Libya, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Lebanon and Syria. They have sanctioned and threatened
and carried out coups against North Korea, Ukraine, Iran, Honduras, Venezuela and Cuba. All that time, the US has also claimed the
right to extradite and torture foreign nationals with impunity. The war crimes of American forces and agencies are beyond measure
and count.
We are so used to American crimes we just don't see them anymore. Imagine Putin, at one his epic four-hour Q&A sessions, off-handedly
admitting to torturing people in illegal prison camps .
Would we ever hear the end of it?
Even if you cede the utterly false claim that Russia has "invaded two neighbours", the scale of destruction just does not compare.
Invert the scale of destruction and casualties of Georgia and Iraq. Imagine Putin's government had killed 500,000 people in Georgia
alone, whilst routinely condemning the US for a week-long war in Iraq that killed less than 600 people. Imagine Russia kidnapped
foreign nationals and tortured them, whilst lambasting America's human rights record.
The double-think employed here is literally insane.
Note to Rice-Oxley and his peers, pointing out your near-delusional hypocrisy is not "whataboutism". It's a standard rhetorical
appeal to fairness. If you believe the world shouldn't be fair, fine, but don't expect other people not to point out your double
standards.
As for poor little Britain, it seems to take this brazen bullying like a whipping boy in the playground who has wet himself.
Boycott the World Cup? That'll teach them!
FALSE: Rice-Oxley is trying to paint a picture of false weakness in order to promote calls for action. Britain has been anything
but cooperative with Russia. British forces operate illegally in
Syria , they arm and train rebels. They refused to let Russian authorities see the evidence in the Litvinenko case, and refused
to let Russian lawyers cross-examine witnesses. Britain's attitude to Russia has been needlessly, provocatively antagonistic for
years.
Russians have complained that the portrayal of their nation in dramas such as McMafia is cartoonish and unhelpful, a lazy smear
casting an entire nation as a ludicrous two-dimensional pantomime villain with a pocketful of poisonous potions .Of course, the
vast majority of Russians are indeed misrepresented by such portrayals, because they are largely innocent in these antics.
TRUE: Russians do complain about this, which is entirely justifiable. The western representation of Russians is ignorant and racist
almost without exception. It is an effort, just like Rice-Oxley's column, to demonize an entire people and whip up hatred of Russia
so that people will support US-UK warmongering.
Most ordinary Russians are in fact also victims of the power system in their country, which requires ideas such as individual
comfort, aspiration, dignity, prosperity and hope to be subjugated to the wanton reflexes of the state
FALSE: Putin's government has decreased poverty by
over 66% in 17 years . They have increased life-expectancy, decreased crime, and increased public health. Pensions, social security
and infrastructure have all been rebuilt. These are not controversial or debated claims. The Guardian published them itself just
a few years ago. That is hardly a state where hope and aspiration are put aside.
Why is Russian power like this: cynical, destructive, zero-sum, determined to bring everything down to a base level where everyone
thinks the worst of each other and behaves accordingly?
MISLEADING FALLACY: This is simply projection. There is no logical basis for this statement. He is simply employing the old rhetorical
trick of asking WHY something exists, as a way of establishing its existence. This allows the (dishonest) author to sell his own
agenda as if it solves a riddle. Before you can explain something, you need to establish an explanandum something which requires
explaining. This is the basic logical process that our dear author is attempting to circumvent. We don't NEED to explain why
Russian power is like this, because he hasn't yet established that it is .
I think there are two reasons. The most powerful political idea in Russia is restoration. A decade of humiliation – economic,
social and geopolitical – that followed its rebirth in 1991 became the defining narrative of the new nation.
MISLEADING LANGUAGE: Describing the absolute destruction caused by the fall of the USSR as "rebirth" is an absurd joke. People
sold their medals, furniture and keepsakes for food, people froze to death in the streets.
At times, even the continued existence of the Russian Federation appeared under threat.
TRUE: This is true. Russia was in danger of Balkanisation. The possibility of dozens of anarchic microstates, many with access
to nuclear weapons, was very real. Most rational people would consider this a bad thing. The achievement of Putin's government in
pulling Russia back from the brink should be applauded. Especially when compared with our Western governments who can barely even
maintain the functional social security states created by their predecessors. Compare the NHS now with the NHS in 2000, compare Russia's
health service now to 17 years ago. Who do you think is really in trouble?
The second reason is that the parlous internal state of Russia – absurdist justice, a threadbare social safety net, a pyramid
society in which a very few get very rich and the rest languish – creates moral ambivalence.
PROJECTION: he actually makes this statement without even a hint of irony. The Tory government has killed people by slashing their
benefits, and homeless people froze to death during the recent blizzards. The overall trend of British social structure has been
down, for decades.
Poverty is increasing all the time ,
food banks are opening and people are increasingly desperate. We are trending down. 20%, one in five British people,
now live in poverty .
In that same time, as stated above, Russia's poverty has gone down and down. 13% of Russians live in poverty, almost half the
UK rate. In 2014, before we sanctioned Russia, it was only 10%. Even the briefest research would show this. Columnists like Rice-Oxley
go out of their way to avoid inconvenient facts.
What is to be done? I wouldn't respond with empty threats, Boris Johnson. No one cares.
Here we come to the centre of the shrubbery maze, up until now the column was just build up. Establishing a "problem" so he can
pitch us a "solution".
There are only two weaknesses in this bully's defences. The first is his money. Britain needs to do something about the dodgy
Russian billions swilling through its financial system. Make it really hard for Kremlin-connected money to buy football clubs
or businesses or establish dodgy limited partnerships; stop oligarchs from raising capital on the London stock exchange. Don't
bother with sanctions. Just say: "No thanks, we don't want your business."
FALSE: This shows not even the most basic understanding of the way money works. Money being made in Russia and spent in London
is bad fo Russia. Sending billionaires back to Russia would inject money INTO the Russian economy. Either Rice-Oxley is actually
a moron, or he is being deliberately dishonest.
What he REALLY means is that we should put pressure on the oligarchs, not to the hurt the Russian economy, but in the hopes the
oligarchs will turn on Putin and remove him by undemocratic means.
He is pushing for backdoor regime change. And if you think I'm reading too much into this, then here
The second is public opinion. The imminent presidential election is a foregone conclusion, but the mood in Russia can turn
suddenly, as we saw in 1991, 1993 and 2011-2012.
Notice how quickly he dismisses the democratic will of the Russian people. Poor, stupid, "envious" Russians aren't equipped to
make their own decisions. We need to step in. "Public opinion" turning means a colour revolution. It means US backed regime change
in a nuclear armed super-power. Backed by the cyberwarriors paid to spread Western propaganda online.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown how public
opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive to
win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
The hypocrisy is mind-blowing, when I read this paragraph I was dumb-founded. Speechless. For months we've been hearing about
how terrible Russia is for allegedly interfering in the American election. Damaging democracy with reporting true news out of context
and some well placed memes.
Our response? Our defense of our "values"? Use the armies of online propagandists our governments employ –
their existence
was reported in the
Guardian – in order to undermine, or undo the democratic will of the Russian people. Rice-Oxley is positing this with a straight
face.
Russia is such a destabilising threat to "our democratic values", such a moral vacuum, that we must use subterfuge to undermine
their elections and remove their popular head of state.
Rice-Oxley wants to push and prod and provoke and antagonise a nuclear armed power that, at worst, is guilty of nothing but playing
our game by our rules and winning. He wants to build a case for war with Russia, and he's doing it on bedrock of cynical lies.
It's all incredibly dangerous. Hopefully they'll realise that before it's too late. For all our sakes.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, Putin's 10 year plan for the future of Russia. Putin is a builder, like Peter the Great. He
is a seeker after excellence, like Catherine the Great. If his 10 year plan can achieve the half of what he set out in his recent
speech, the name Putin will go down in history with the same sobriquet.
The most important part of Putin's March 1st speech:
And on the village level, because that's where most of the real work of the world is done, a snippet BTL from Auslander who
lives in the Crimea: "the first implications of anti corruption efforts are obvious in our little village. We'll see how it pans
out but everyone can, and should, assist in this task. The proof will be in the pudding when The West starts screaming about certain
kind, gentle and innocent 'businessmen' who end up counting trees [in Siberia?] for a decade or three."
I wonder how much longer the general readership over there will cotton on to the pro-war and propaganda agenda of the Guardian
and leave it en masse? It's as dishonest as The Sun.
"Poor little Britain", with half the population, a much smaller territory ,and being part of the largest military alliance in
the world, spends only 10 billions less than Russia in "defense". One of those "defense" strategies included in the budget, one
that all those commentators vilifying Russia conveniently ignore, is to blow up weddings, funerals and entire villages with missiles
fired from drones. No trial, no public kill list, no record of people killed, no accountability. That is sanctioned, extra-judicial
murder of suspects and everyone around them. And these progressive commentators, eager to spread prosperity by any mean, seem
to be ok with it.
Update: as I was writing this I noticed that The Guardian has a piece by (of all people!), Simon Jenkins, which, yes, takes
for granted that the assassination attempt was carried out by the Russians, but asks if there is a moral difference between that
and killing suspects with drone strikes. For that, he has been labeled an useful idiot and "an apologist for attempted mass murder
on British soil". Highly amusing if you ask me, but also a terrifying example of how straying if only a little bit from the official
line ("yes, the Russians tried to kill this guy, they are the worst, but maybe we should have a look at ourselves and our (kind
of) inappropriate tendency to murder everyone we want") has to be punished. There are no ifs or buts while at the two minutes
of hate. Now even the pieces that are there to give a semblance of balance have to be torn apart by those liberal, prosperity
loving persons that can´t seem to be able to condemn the murder of children at will. Now it is time to express hatred towards
Goldstein, I mean, of course, Putin and everything Russia.
This,,,"Russia appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during the cold war."
Should be changed to "The Guardian appears lost, a global menace, a moral vacuum, a far greater threat than it ever was during
the cold war."
All suffering from PTDS AKA Putin-Trump Derangement Syndrome.
The Russophobes over at the Guardian (and the rest of the corporate media) would be well advised to review the trial of Julius
Streicher at the Nuremberg Tribunal.
The Guardian has consistently propagandised for regime changes inspired by Washington NeoCons, those of Libya, Syria, Ukraine
and is ramping up their propaganda machine toward North Korea, Venezuela and now Russia itself having promoted destabilisation
on its borders in Ukraine.
I find it the ultimate paradox that a publication purporting to be 'liberal' acts so enthusiastically
for deadly regime changes from this once Trotskyist but now extreme Right Wing group. There is nothing 'liberal', 'humanitarian',
or moral about promotion of deadly regime changes that have destroyed previously peaceful nations and murdered hundreds of thousands
in the process. Guardian for the geopolitical goals of the self-declared 'exceptional' Empire, the new 'master race' that of the
US.
One final observation on the Skripal case (for now): this stuff is so toxic. We don't know what the stuff is: nevertheless,
we know it is so toxic, can only be made by a state, and needs careful expert handling. We know this because every paper
and TV channel has by now emphasised that this stuff is so toxic, etc. If we missed the "nerve agents and what they do
to you" coverage: we can ascertain for ourselves from the men in the hazmat suits, the this stuff must be so toxic. The
Army have now been deployed: on hand after completing the largest CW exercise ever held, 'Toxic Dagger'; they are now employing
their specialist skills to carry out "Sensitive Site Operations" because this stuff is you get it by now. In another piece of
pure theater: police in hazmat suits were examining the grave of Alexander and Liudmila Skripal because even after a year or more
buried underground, you can't be too careful, because this stuff is A woman from the office next to Zizzi was taken ill (maybe
she had the risotto con pesce) because even after a week, and next door, traces of this stuff can still be
11 (or 16) people were hospitalised from the effects of 'this stuff': the first attending officer, Nick Bailey, is only just
out of ICU and lucky to be alive. The Skripal's are not so lucky: and on "palliative care" according to H de Bretton-Gordon. Yet
the eye-witness calling himself 'Jamie Paine' was close enough to get coughed on; and the unnamed passing doctor and nurse that
attended the Skripals at the scene, clearing their airways, are all fine (despite being hospitalised). Yet PC Bailey nearly died?
Funny that?
When first you practice to deceive: someone in the propaganda department must have noticed this glaring inconsistency. Enter,
stage right, former Met Chief Ian (now Lord) Blair (guess who was leading the Met when Litvinenko was poisoned?): to clarify that
PC Bailey was contaminated when he was the first officer to enter the Skripal's home – not attend them in Salisbury. This allowed
the Torygraph and Fox to speculate that Yulia brought a contaminated present for her father (which she kept in a drawer for a
week, because this stuff is so toxic?). The Torygraph's previous spin: that Skripal was poisoned for his contributions
to the Pissgate dossier were torpedoed by Orbis (Steele's company). Speaking on Radio 4: after pushing the Buzzfeed "14 other
deaths" dodgy dossier; Blair said "So there maybe some clues floating around in here." Yes, clues that you are lying? This is
pure theater: only it is more Morecambe and Wise than Shakespeare.
Check out the report from
C4News (mute the sound).
Two guys plodding around in fluorescent breather suits, another couple with gas masks, but behind them firemen in normal uniform
and no gas masks and the reporter 20 feet in front, in civvies wih no protective gear at all.
Virulent nerve agent threat? Theatre, and not very convincing at that.
Flaxgirl: a bit OT, but not too much as this event does not seem to have too much basis in reality: on the question of fabrication
the UK Home Office held an event this week – Security and Policing 2018 – where the "Live Demo Area" was sponsored by Crisis Cast.
I though you might interested? Are they providing critical incident training: or the critical incidents themselves is a legitimate
question after the events in Salisbury?
I suppose by now we should be used to the nauseating, self-righteous bluster dished out on a daily basis by the Anglo-Zionist
media. The two minutes hate by the flabby 'left' liberals who now have apparently joined forces with the demented US neo-cons
in openly baying for a war against Russia. How, exactly did these people expect Russia to react to the abrogation of the ABM agreement,
marching NATO right up to Russia's doorstep, staging coups in the Ukraine and Georgia, having the US sixth fleet swanning around
in the Black Sea? Of course, Russia reacted as any other self-respecting state would react to such blatant provocations. And this
includes the US during the Cuba crisis and its self-proclaimed right to intervene in its sphere of influence – Latin America –
and for that matter anywhere else on the planet. And it does so A L'outrance.
But I was foregetting, the Anglo-Zionist axis has a divine mission mandated by the deity to reconfigure the world and bring
democracy and freedom to those "Lesser breeds without the Law" (Kipling). Of course, this updated version of 'taking up the white
man's burden' by the 'exceptional people' may involve mass murder, mayhem, destruction and chaos, unfortunately necessary in the
short(ish) run. But these benighted peoples should realise it is for their own good, and if this means starving to death 500,000
Iraqi children through sanctions, well, it was 'worth it' according to the lovely Madeline Albright. This is the language and
methodology of a totalitarian imperialism. As someone has remarked the Anglo-zionist empire is not on the wrong side of history,
it is the wrong side of history.
The arrogance, ignorance and crass venality of these people is manifest to the point of parody.
I agree with Mark Rice-Oxley that Russian oligarchs should pull their money out of Britain and return it to Russia to invest in
businesses there. That would be the ethical thing for them to do, to fulfill their proper tax obligations and stop using Britain
as a tax haven.
I hear that Russia has had another bumper wheat harvest and is now poised to take over from Australia as the major wheat exporter
to Egypt and Indonesia, the world's biggest buyers of wheat. So if Russian oligarchs are wondering where to put their money in,
wheat production, research into improving wheat yields and the conditions wheat is grown in are just a few areas they can invest
in.
Be careful what you wish for, Mr Rice-Oxley – your wish might come true bigger than you realise!
On top of what I said yesterday, if Russian oligarchs do pull all their money out of Britain, the British economy would crash,
it being highly dependent on the services sector (constituting 80% of Britain's GDP in 2016 according to Wikipedia) and the financial
services industry in particular. So if all those Russian billions swirling through Britain's financial system are "dodgy", that's
because the system itself encouraged those inflows.
"Poor little Britain" which actually spends on par with Russia in terms of its military budget, despite the fact that a) it's
a much smaller country to defend and is surrounded by water, and b) it's part of NATO with the US as its staunch defender so it
really doesn't need a standalone military anyway.
"It's them, over there, they are evil. We must stop them. They are coming for us, they will take our children and steal our i
phones !!! Arrgh!!!" "I'll have another strong short black thanks"
Their world is falling apart- in Korea and the Middle East the Empire is on the verge of eviction. All the certitudes of yesteryear
are dissolving. Even the Turks, who, famously, held the line in Korea when the PLA attacked and the US Eighth Army fled south,
are now on the other side. The same Turks who hosted US nuclear armed strategic missiles so openly that the USSR sent missiles
of its own to Cuba.
As to the UK, the economy is contracting and the economic infrastructure is cracking up- living standards are plummeting and the
only recourse of those responsible for the mess-the officers on the bridge- is propaganda. Like the Empire the British Establishment
has been living on the fruits of its own propaganda for so long that, when it is exposed as merely empty bullying, there is nothing
left but to resort to more lies in the hope that they will obscure raw and looming reality.
In The Guardian newsroom the water
is three feet deep and rising inexorably, the ship is sinking and all hands are required to bail or the screens will go black.
There is no time to wait for developments, for investigations to be completed, for evidence- every ounce of strength must be thrown
into the defiance of nature, the shocking nakedness of reality.
There is something very significant about the way that simultaneous attacks of impotent russophobic dementia are eating away
the brains of the rulers on both sides of the Atlantic.
The game, which has been going the same way for about 500 years, is up. The maritime empire is becoming marginal and the force
that it has used, throughout these centuries, no longer overwhelms. The cruisers and carriers no longer work except to intimidate
those not worth frightening.
There is only one thing left for the Empire and its hundreds of thousands of apparatchiki-from cops to pundits, from Professors
to jailers- either they adjust to a new dispensation because the Times are Changing or they blow themselves and the whole planet
up.
From what's emerging now, it seems there simply were no assassins wandering round Salisbury. Instead, it appears Mr Skripal
for some reason has a house full of nerve gas, or enough of it at least to take out himself, his daughter and a policeman who
inspected the premises.
Cleary the Guardian was swallowed up by England's fascist regime controlled by the City of London when it surrendered its hard
drives to the regime for examination and/or destruction in the wake of the Snowden revelations.
The Guardian ownerships also sold their souls -- although the Guardian had already been in decline before they nabbed Glenn
Greenwald. When he left, the Guardian lost ALL presumptive credibility.
Now The Guardian is just an organ of regime propaganda like the BBC (thank GOd for OffGuardian) and here is the island nation
AGAIN asserting its dominance over the whole world, but this time on behalf of his brawnier brother, the EUSE, aka Exceptional
US Empire.
One wonders how much longer the Russians will put up with this now that it is CLEAR that -- for the first time ever -- the
Russians have complete military and nuclear superiority over "The West."
I'll bet Putin won't invade Ukraine, Germany, France, Brussels and England from the North and from the sea in the wintertime.
The Big Problem Is YThat Americans are afraid -- frightened -- but they are NOT afraid or frightened of a particular tbhing
-- it is a generic fright. So they are no longer afraid of nuclear war. Trotsky said A'meria was the strongest nation but also
the most terrified' and nothing has changed except military and nuclear superiority along with economic clout has shifted to Russia
and China. Were Americans afraid of nuclear war -- or say, of an invasion from Saskatchewan or Tamaulipas -- there might be hope.
But somewhere along the time beginning with Clinton, Americans didn't worry their pretty little heads about nuclear war or
American wars on everybody anywhere any longer so long as it didn't disturb their creature comforts and shopping and lattes by
coming to the homeland. The Nuclear Freeze movement was, after all, a direct response to Reagan's "evil empire" military buildup
in the 1980s and then voila he and Gorbachev negotiated away a whole class of nuclear weapoms and Old Bush promised NAto wouldn;t
expand. Hope. Then that sneaky little bastard Clinton started expanding Nato on behalf of the Pentagon / CKIA / NSA / miklitary
/congressional industyrial complex.
Maybe it's time to try some new digital hearts-and-minds operation. In the internet age, Russians have already shown
how public opinion can be manipulated. Perhaps our own secret digital marvels can embark on the kind of information counter-offensive
to win over the many millions of Russians who share our values. Perhaps they already are.
He really is taking Russians for idiots and fools!
There is one key element that proves that the Russians didn't do it: The Russians aren't so clumsy as to poison over a dozen
other people at the same time.
The whole piece is an emotionally charged rant, bordering on hysteria, based on a transparent tissue of lies, distortions
and absolutely stunning hypocrisy; and this coming from the 'liberal' 'left of centre' Guardian!
It's rather scary. The Guardian screaming for a crusade aimed at toppling the Russian system and replacing it with something
else, something closer to 'our values.' The moralizing is shocking and grotesque. I really wish the ground would just open up
and swallow the Guardian whole. We'd be far better off with out it.
Are powerful intelligence agencies compatible even with limited neoliberal democracy, or
democracy for top 10 or 1%?
Notable quotes:
"... I recall during the George II administration someone in congress advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to bankruptcy ..."
"... Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he demands of them. ..."
"... Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us mopes have only slave roles to play... ..."
You have a good point, but I often think that, a the machinery of surveillance and repression
becomes so well oiled and refined, the ruling oligarchs will soon stop even paying lip
service to 'American workers', or the "American middle class" and go full authoritarian. Karl
Rove's dream to return the economy to the late 19th Century standard.
The Clintonoid project seems set on taking it to the late 16th century. Probably with a
return of chattel slavery. I recall during the George II administration someone in congress
advocating for he return of debtor's prisons during the 'debat' over ending access to
bankruptcy
Soros, like the Koch brothers, heads an organization. He has lots of "people" who do what he
demands of them.
Do you really contend that Soros and the Koch brothers, and people like Adelson, aren't busily "undermining American democracy," whatever that is, via their
organizations (like ALEC and such) in favor of their oligarchic kleptocratic interests, and
going at it 24/7?
The phrase "reductio ad absurdam" comes to mind, for some reason...
Let's give these guys (and gals, too, let's not forget the Pritzkers and DeVoses and the
Walton Family, just among us Norte Americanos) full credit for all the hard work they are
putting in, and money too, of course, to buy a world the way they want it -- one which us
mopes have only slave roles to play...
This is an old method to unite the nation against external enemy. Carnage (with so much oil and gas) needs to be
destroyed. And it's working only partially with the major divisions between Trump and Hillary supporters remaining
open and unaffected by Russiagate witch hunt.
Notable quotes:
"... It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as part of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances. ..."
"... The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is "sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media. ..."
"... A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary" , he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save it, Americans need to begin working together." ..."
"... He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic institutions, the Russians are winning." ..."
"... The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law. ..."
"... The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies? ..."
"... The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged "Russian interference". ..."
"... Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV. ..."
Russophobia - "blame it all on Russia" - is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day of reckoning when furious
and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for their legitimate grievances
It is an age-old statecraft technique to seek unity within a state by depicting an external
enemy or threat. Russia is the bête noire again, as it was during the Cold War years as
part of the Soviet Union.
But the truth is Western states are challenged by internal problems. Ironically, by denying their own internal democratic challenges, Western authorities are
only hastening their institutional demise.
Russophobia -- "blame it all on Russia" -- is a short-term, futile ploy to stave off the day
of reckoning when furious and informed Western citizens will demand democratic restitution for
their legitimate grievances.
The dominant "official" narrative, from the US to Europe, is that "malicious" Russia is
"sowing division;""eroding democratic institutions;" and "undermining public trust" in systems
of governance, credibility of established political parties, and the news media.
This narrative has shifted up a gear since the election of Donald Trump to the White House
in 2016, with accusations that the Kremlin somehow ran "influence operations" to help get him
into office. This outlandish yarn defies common sense. It is also running out of thread to keep
spinning.
Paradoxically, even though President Trump has rightly rebuffed such dubious claims of
"Russiagate" interference as "fake news", he has at other times undermined himself by
subscribing to the notion that Moscow is projecting a campaign of "subversion against the US
and its European allies." See for example the National Security Strategy he signed off in
December.
Pathetically, it's become indoctrinated belief among the Western political class that
"devious Russians" are out to "collapse" Western democracies by
"weaponizing disinformation" and spreading "fake news" through Russia-based
news outlets like RT and Sputnik.
Totalitarian-like, there seems no room for intelligent dissent among political or media
figures.
British Prime Minister Theresa May has chimed in to
accuse Moscow of "sowing division;" Dutch state intelligence claim Russia
destabilized the US presidential election; the European Union commissioner for security, Sir
Julian King, casually lampoons Russian news media as "Kremlin-orchestrated
disinformation" to destabilize the 28-nation bloc; CIA chief Mike Pompeo recently warned
that Russia is stepping up its efforts to tarnish the Congressional mid-term elections later
this year.
On and on goes the narrative that Western states are essentially victims of a nefarious
Russian assault to bring about collapse.
A particularly instructive presentation of this trope was given in a recent commentary by Texan
Republican Representative Will Hurd. In his piece headlined, "Russia is our adversary"
, he claims: "Russia is eroding our democracy by exploiting the nation's divisions. To save
it, Americans need to begin working together."
Congressman Hurd asserts: "Russia has one simple goal: to erode trust in our democratic
institutions It has weaponized disinformation to achieve this goal for decades in Eastern and
Central Europe; in 2016, Western Europe and America were aggressively targeted as
well."
Lamentably, all these claims above are made with scant, or no, verifiable evidence. It is
simply a Big Lie technique of relentless repetition transforming itself into "fact"
.
It's instructive to follow Congressman Hurd's thought-process a bit further.
He contends: "When the public loses trust in the media, the Russians are winning. When
the press is hyper-critical of Congress the Russians are winning. When Congress and the general
public disagree the Russians are winning. When there is friction between Congress and the
executive branch [the president] resulting in further erosion of trust in our democratic
institutions, the Russians are winning."
As a putative solution, Representative Hurd calls for "a national counter-disinformation
strategy" against Russian "influence operations" , adding, "Americans must
stop contributing to a corrosive political environment".
The latter is a chilling advocacy of uniformity tantamount to a police state whereby any
dissent or criticism is a "thought-crime."
It is, however, such anti-democratic and paranoid thinking by Western politicians -- aided
and abetted by dutiful media -- that is killing democracy from within, not some supposed
foreign enemy.
There is evidently a foreboding sense of demise in authority and legitimacy among Western
states, even if the real cause for the demise is ignored or denied. Systems of governance,
politicians of all stripes, and institutions like the established media and intelligence
services are increasingly held in contempt and distrust by the public.
Whose fault is that loss of political and moral authority? Western governments and
institutions need to take a look in the mirror.
The endless, criminal wars that the US and its European NATO allies have been waging across
the planet over the past two decades is one cogent reason why the public has lost faith in
grandiose official claims about respecting democracy and international law.
The US and European media have shown reprehensible dereliction of duty to inform the public
accurately about their governments' warmongering intrigues. Take the example of Syria. When
does the average Western citizen ever read in the corporate Western media about how the US and
its NATO allies have covertly ransacked that country through weaponizing terrorist proxies?
How then can properly informed citizens be expected to have respect for such criminal
government policies and the complicit news media covering up for their crimes?
Western public disaffection with governments, politicians and media surely stems also from
the grotesque gulf in social inequality and poverty among citizens from slavish adherence to
economic policies that enrich the wealthy while consigning the vast majority to unrelenting
austerity.
The destabilizing impact on societies from oppressive economic conditions is a far more
plausible cause for grievance than outlandish claims made by the political class about alleged
"Russian interference".
Yet the Western media indulge this fantastical "Russiagate" escapism instead of campaigning
on real social problems facing ordinary citizens. No wonder such media are then viewed with
disdain and distrust. Adding insult to injury, these media want the public to believe Russia is
the enemy?
Instead of acknowledging and addressing real threats to citizens: economic insecurity,
eroding education and health services, lost career opportunities for future generations, the
looming dangers of ecological adversity, wars prompted by Western governments trashing
international and diplomacy, and so on -- the Western public is insultingly plied with corny
tales of Russia's "malign influence" and "assault on democracy."
Just think of the disproportionate amount of media attention and public resources wasted on
the Russiagate scandal over the past year. And now gradually emerging is the real scandal that
the American FBI probably colluded with the Obama administration to corrupt the democratic
process against Trump.
Again, is there any wonder the public has sheer contempt and distrust for "authorities" that
have been lying through their teeth and playing them for fools?
The collapsing state of Western democracies has got nothing to do with Russia. The
Russophobia of blaming Russia for the demise of Western institutions is an attempt at
scapegoating for the very real problems facing governments and institutions like the news
media. Those problems are inherent and wholly owned by these governments owing to chronic
anti-democratic functioning, as well as systematic violation of international law in their
pursuit of criminal wars and other subterfuges for regime-change objectives.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several
languages. Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For
over 20 years he worked as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and
Independent. Now a freelance journalist based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation
and Press TV.
Very weak analysis The authors completely missed the point. Susceptibility to rumors (now
called "fake new" which more correctly should be called "improvised news") and high level of
distrust to "official MSM" (of which popularity of alternative news site is only tip of the
iceberg) is a sign of the crisis and tearing down of the the social fabric that hold the so
social groups together. This first of all demonstrated with the de-legitimization of the
neoliberal elite.
As such attempt to patch this discord and unite the US society of fake premises of Russiagate
and anti-Russian hysteria look very problematic. The effect might be quite opposite as the story
with Steele dossier, which really undermined credibility of Justice Department and destroyed the
credibility o FBI can teach us.
In this case claims that "The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan
" are just s a sign of rejection of neoliberalism by voters. Nothing more nothing less.
Notable quotes:
"... It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more damaging, is all American-made. ..."
"... A recent study found that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media consumption. ..."
That these efforts might have actually made a difference, or at least were intended to,
highlights a force that was already destabilizing American democracy far more than any
Russian-made fake news post: partisan polarization.
"Partisanship can even alter memory, implicit evaluation, and even perceptual judgment," the
political scientists Jay J. Van Bavel and Andrea Pereira wrote in a recent paper . "The human attraction to fake and
untrustworthy news" -- a danger cited by political scientists far more frequently than
orchestrated meddling -- "poses a serious problem for healthy democratic functioning."
It has infected the American political system, weakening the body politic and leaving it
vulnerable to manipulation. Russian misinformation seems to have exacerbated the symptoms, but
laced throughout the indictment are reminders that the underlying disease, arguably far more
damaging, is all American-made.
... ... ...
A recent study found
that the people most likely to consume fake news were already hyperpartisan and close followers
of politics, and that false stories were only a small fraction of their media
consumption.
Americans, it said, sought out stories that reflected their already-formed partisan view of
reality. This suggests that these Russians efforts are indicators -- not drivers -- of how
widely Americans had polarized.
That distinction matters for how the indictment is read: Though Americans have seen it as
highlighting a foreign threat, it also illustrates the perhaps graver threats from
within.
An Especially Toxic Form of Partisanship
... ... ...
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
In taking this approach, the Russians were merely riding a trend that has been building for
decades.
Since the 1980s , surveys have found that Republicans and Democrats' feelings toward the
opposing party have been growing more and more negative. Voters are animated more by distrust
of the other side than support for their own.
This highlights a problem that Lilliana Mason, a University of Maryland political scientist,
said had left American democracy dangerously vulnerable. But it's a problem driven primarily by
American politicians and media outlets, which have far louder megaphones than any Russian-made
Facebook posts.
"Compromise is the core of democracy," she said. "It's the only way we can govern." But, she
said, "when you make people feel threatened, nobody compromises with evil."
The claim that, for example, Mrs. Clinton's victory might aid Satan is in many ways just a
faint echo of the partisan anger and fear already dominating American politics.
Those emotions undermine a key norm that all sides are served by honoring democratic
processes; instead, they justify, or even seem to mandate, extreme steps against the other
side.
"... The pro-Hillary warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding' with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really can explain what that 'interference' means. ..."
"... They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would push against that degradation ..."
"... Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator, " Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? " ..."
"... And by the way, if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has become a commonplace. We are degraded. ..."
"... We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory. That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. ..."
"... Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days, the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative. ..."
"... Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the conclusion that war is coming. ..."
"... The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia. ..."
How Russiagate fiasco destroys Kremlin moderates, accelerating danger for a hot war with Russiaglobinfo freexchange
Corporate Democrats can't stop pushing for war through the Russiagate fiasco.
The party has been completely taken over by the neocon/neoliberal establishment and has nothing to do with the Left. The pro-Hillary
warmongering media, the ones that pushed for war in Iraq and elsewhere, through big lies and false evidence, are the vanguard of
this ugly machine that supports the most terrible Trump administration bills, yet, this machine can't stop accusing him for 'colluding'
with Russia that 'interfered' in the 2016 US election. Of course, no evidence presented for such an accusation and no one really
can explain what that 'interference' means.
But things are probably much worse, because this completely absurd persistence on Russiagate fiasco that feeds an evident anti-Russian
hysteria, destroys all the influence of the Kremlin moderates who struggle to keep open channels between Russia and the United States.
Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies, history, and politics at NY University and Princeton University, explained
to Aaron Maté and the RealNews
the terrible consequences:
They're accusing the President of the United States of being a Russian agent, this has never happened in American history. However
much you may loathe Trump, this is a whole new realm of defamation. For a number of years, there's been a steady degradation of American
political culture and discourse, generally. There was a time when I hoped or thought that it would be the Democratic Party that would
push against that degradation.
Now, however, though I'm kind of only nominally, a Democrat, it's the Democratic Party that's degrading our political culture
and our discourse. So, this is MSNBC, which purports to be not only the network of the Democratic Party, but the network of the progressive
wing of the Democratic Party, is now actually because this guy was a semi-anchor was asking the question to an American senator,
" Do you think that Representative Nunes, because he wants the memo released, has been compromised by the Kremlin? "
I think all of us need to focus on what's happened in this country when in the very mainstream, at the highest, most influential
levels of the political establishment, this kind of discourse is no longer considered an exception. It is the norm. We hear it daily
from MSNBC and CNN, from the New York Times and the Washington Post, that people who doubt the narrative of what's loosely called
Russiagate are somehow acting on behalf of or under the spell of the Kremlin, that we aren't Americans any longer. And by the way,
if people will say, " Well, it's a weak capitulation of McCarthyism, " I say no, it's much more than that because McCarthy
was obsessed with Communist. That was a much narrower concept than being obsessed with anybody who might be under Russian influence
of any kind. The so-called affinity for Russia. Well, I have a profound affinity for Russian culture and for Russian history. I study
it all the time. This is something new. And so, when you accuse a Republican or any Congressman of being a Kremlin agent, this has
become a commonplace. We are degraded.
The new Cold War is unfolding not far away from Russia, like the last in Berlin, but on Russia's borders in the Baltic and in
Ukraine. We are building up our military presence there, so the Russians are counter-building up, though within their territory.
That means the chances of hot war are now much greater than they were before. Meanwhile, not only do we not have a discussion of
these real dangers in the United States but anyone who wants to incite a discussion, including the President of the United States,
is called treasonous. Every time Trump has tried with Putin to reach a cooperative arrangement, for example, on fighting terrorism
in Syria, which is a necessary purpose, literally, the New York Times and the others call him treasonous. Whereas, in the old days,
the old Cold War, we had a robust discussion. There is none here. We have no alert system that's warning the American people and
its representatives how dangerous this is. And as we mentioned before, it's not only Nunes, it's a lot of people who are being called
Kremlin agents because they want to digress from the basic narrative.
Meanwhile, people in Moscow who formed their political establishment, who surround Putin and the Kremlin, I mean, the big brains
who are formed policy tankers, and who have always tended to be kind of pro-American, and very moderate, have simply come to the
conclusion that war is coming. They can't think of a single thing to tell the Kremlin to offset hawkish views in the Kremlin. Every
day, there's something new. And these were the people in Moscow who are daytime peacekeeping interlockers. They have been
destroyed by Russiagate. Their influence as Russia is zilch. And the McCarthyites in Russia, they have various terms, now
called the pro-American lobby in Russia 'fifth columnists'. This is the damage that's been done. There's never been anything like
this in my lifetime.
The Democrats couldn't had downgrade their party further. This disgusting spectacle would make FDR totally ashamed of what this party
has become. Not only they are voting for every pro-plutocracy GOP bill under Trump administration, but they have become champions
in bringing back a much worse and unpredictable Cold War that is dangerously escalating tension with Russia.
And, unfortunately,
even the most progressives of the Democrats are adopting the Russiagate bogus, like Bernie Sanders, because they know that if they
don't obey to the narratives, the DNC establishment will crush them politically in no time.
"... The DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals. ..."
"... Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. ..."
"... The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize the charade and are demanding real progressive change? ..."
Victor Sciamarelli says: February 10, 2018 at 2:35 pm
An interesting article especially the conclusion under "Top Priorities" where it states, "It
is here that Russiagate performs a critical function for Trump's political foes. Far beyond
Israelgate, Russiagate allows them [democrats] to oppose Trump while obscuring key areas where
they either share his priorities or have no viable alternative."
This is important and I largely agree, but the observation could have gone further. The
DP is a neoliberal party which has been able to distinguish itself from Republicans by
campaigning like progressives, but governing as neoliberals.
Trump ran his campaign as a populist who would "drain the swamp." He opposed trade
deals, and corporations relocating their factories outside the US. The Clinton campaign ran
mostly negative personal attacks at Trump's failed marriages, his university, business
bankruptcies, abuse of women, and his Russian connection. Jill Stein was attacked and
brought before the Senate Intelligence Committee because the dossier claimed, falsely, that she
accepted payment from Russia to attend a RT event in Moscow. And we all know what happened to
the Sanders' campaign.
None of this would matter because Clinton was expected to win. Trump is a hypocrite and a
fake populist but the populist message resonated with voters. Bernie Sanders, the real deal
populist, remains the most popular politician in America and he is the most popular democratic
politician among Republican voters.
The recent FISA reauthorization bill passed with 65 House Democrats who joined Trump and the
Republicans. In 2002 the DP controlled the Senate, but 29 Dems joined Republicans to pass the
Iraq War Resolution along with 82 House Dems. And was the Republican regime change in Iraq
better than the Democratic regime change in Libya? And recall that Hugo Chavez, who was
democratically elected, governed constitutionally, and complied with international law, and if
he ever crossed a line it was trivial compared to the lines Bush crossed, was labeled a
dictator and attacked much like Putin is today.
The DP has a real problem, how can they continue to be a neoliberal party, and cooperate
with the RP, while pretending to support progressive causes when more and more people realize
the charade and are demanding real progressive change?
Maintaining a neoliberal course on behalf of elite interests is more important than winning
elections. Thus, while Trump is investigated, the DP and supportive media are preparing to
demonize progressives and any alternative voices as nothing more than Russian puppets.
"... In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable." ..."
"... CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths. ..."
"... Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable. ..."
"... I have found that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies ..."
"... I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know. ..."
Randy Credico: A lot of mainstream journalists complain when Trump refers to them as the enemy of the people, but they
have shown themselves to be very unwilling to circle the wagons around Assange. What is the upshot for journalists of Assange being
taken down?
John Pilger: Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected,
because most people don't trust the mainstream media anymore.
In my experience as a journalist, the public have always been ahead of the media. And yet, in many news outlets there has
always been a kind of veiled contempt for the public. You find young journalists affecting a false cynicism that they think ordains
them as journalists. The cynicism is not about the people at the top, it's about the people at the bottom, the people that Hillary
Clinton dismissed as "irredeemable."
CNN and NBC and the rest of the networks have been the voices of power and have been the source of distorted news for such
a long time. They are not circling the wagons because the wagons are on the wrong side. These people in the mainstream have been
an extension of the power that has corrupted so much of our body politic. They have been the sources of so many myths.
This latest film about The Post neglects to mention that The Washington Post was a passionate supporter of the Vietnam
War before it decided to have a moral crisis about whether to publish the Pentagon Papers. Today, TheWashington Post
has a $600 million deal with the CIA to supply them with information.
Media in the West is now an extension of imperial power. It is no longer a loose extension, it is a direct extension. Whether
or not it has fallen out with Donald Trump is completely irrelevant. It is lined up with all the forces that want to get rid of Donald
Trump. He is not the one they want in the White House, they wanted Hillary Clinton, who is safer and more reliable.
I've always liked Mr. Pilger, and Mr. Parry, of course, and Hedges and so on However in this statement made by Mr. Pilger,
"Trump knows which nerves to touch. His campaign against the mainstream media may even help to get him re-elected, because most
people don't trust the mainstream media anymore." I would really disagree based on my own personal experiences. I have found
that those who voted for Clinton are very quick to swallow what mainstream media has to say, and those that voted for Trump, at
this moment, hold the media in contempt, however they also very willingly accept Trump's policies and his lies, like his
climate change denial and his position on Iran. It's more about taking sides then it is in being interested in the truth.
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 4:33 pm
I would like to add, that In the US most of Americans are usually ignorant of politics and government. Many believe that
their votes are unlikely to change the outcome of an election and don't see the point in learning much about the subject. So we
have a country of people with little political knowledge and little ability to objectively evaluate what they do know.
Joe Tedesky , January 24, 2018 at 6:28 pm
You got that right Annie. In fact I know people who voted for Hillary, and they wake up every morning to turn on MSNBC or CNN
only to hear what Trump tweeted, because they like getting pissed off at Trump, and get even more self induced angry when they
don't hear his impeachment being shouted out on the screen.
I forgive a lot of these types who don't get into the news, because it just isn't their thing I guess, but I get even madder
that we don't have a diversified media enough to give people the complete story. I mean a brilliant media loud enough, and objective
enough, to reach the mass uncaring community. We have talked about this before, about the MSM's omission of the news, as to opposed
just lying they do that too, as you know Annie, and it's a crime against a free press society. In fact, I not being a lawyer,
would not be surprised that this defect in our news is not Constitutional.
Although, less and less people are watching the news, because they know it's phony, have you noticed how political our Late
Night Talk Show Host have become? Hmmm boy, sometimes you have to give it to the Deep State because they sure know how to cover
the market of dupes. To bad the CIA isn't selling solar panels, or something beneficial like that, which could help our ailing
world.
We are living in a Matrix of left vs right, liberal vs conservative, all of us are on the divide, and that's the way it suppose
to be. You know I don't mean that, but that's what the Deep State has done to us, for a lack of a better description of their
evil unleashed upon the planet.
I like reading your thoughts, because you go kind of deep, and you come up with angles not thought of, well at least not by
me so forgive me if I reply to often. Joe
Annie , January 24, 2018 at 10:18 pm
I know I keep referring to Facebook, but it really allows you to see how polarized people have become. Facebook posts political
non issues, but nonetheless they will elicit comments that are downright hateful. Divide and conquer is something I often think
when I view these comments. I rarely watch TV, but enough to see how TV Talk Show hosts have gotten into the act, and Trump supplies
them with an endless source of material, not that their discussing core issues either.
I don't remember whether I mentioned this before in a recent article on this site, but when a cousin posts a response to a
comment I made about our militarism and how many millions have died as a result that all countries do sneaky and underhanded things,
I can only think people don't want to hear the truth either, and that's why most are so vulnerable to our propaganda, which is
we are the exceptional nation that can do no wrong. Those who are affluent want to maintain the status quo, and those that live
pay check to pay check are vulnerable to Trump's lies, and the lies of the Republican party whose interest lie with the top 1
percent.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 12:36 am
Talking about lies you mention only Trump and the Republicans Annie. Is this because the Democrats are such party of criminals
that you consider them worth mentioning only in the crime chronic not in the context of lies?
About that "Climate Change" religion of yours: how much does it make sense that people around US are freezing but TPTB still
want to tax fossil fuels, the only one thing which can keep people warm? Does that not look to your left-wing mind as taking
from the poor to give to the Green & Connected ? Will a wind-turbine or a solar-panel keep you warm on a -50 degree day? I
am yet to live to see one green-scheme which is not for the benefit of the Green & Connected, whilst this constant braying about
global warming renamed into climate change is simply as annoying as the crimes of the Israelis hidden by the media (Did you see
that photo of a 3-year old Palestinian child whose brain was splattered out by an Israeli sniper's bullet? She must have been
throwing stones or slapping Israeli soldiers, right?).
I am not a US voter and I do not care either way which color gang is running your horrible country, because it always turns
out the same. But the blatant criminality of your Demoncrats is only surpassed by their humanitarian sleaze – they always bomb,
kill and rape for the good of humanity or for the greenery or for some other touchy-feelly bull like that, which the left-wing
stupidos can swallow.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:15 am
Oh, Kiza, are you one of those people that patrol the internet for people who dare mention climate change? I have no intentions
of changing your mind on the subject, even though my background is in environmental science with a Masters degree in the subject.
I am not a registered democrat, but an independent and didn't vote for Clinton, or Trump. I'm too much of a liberal. I'm very
aware of the many faults of the democratic party, and you're right about them. They abandoned their working class base decades
ago and they pretty much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country. Yes, both parties
proclaim their allegiance to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world
and that world pretty much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war.
P. S. However being fair, the Republican base is the top 1 percent in this country.
Kiza , January 25, 2018 at 6:46 am
Hello again Annie, thank you for your response. I must admit that your mention of climate change triggered an unhappy reaction
in me, otherwise I do think that our views are not far from each other. Thank you for not trying to change my mind on climate
change because you would not have succeeded no matter what your qualifications are. My life experience simply says – always follow
the money and when I do I see a climate mafia similar to the MIC mafia. I did think that the very cold weather that gripped US
would reduce the climate propaganda, but nothing can keep the climate mafia down any more – the high ranked need to pay for their
yachts and private jets and the low ranks have to pay of their house mortgages. But I will never understand why the US lefties
are so dumb – to be so easily taken to imperial wars and so easily convinced to tax the 99% for the benefit of 1% yet again. Where
do you think the nasty fossil fuel producers will find the money to pay for the taxes to be or already imposed? Will they sacrifice
their profits or pay the green taxes from higher prices?
Other than this, I honestly cannot see any difference between the so called Democrats and the so called Republicans (you say
that the Republicans are for the 1%). Both have been scrapping the bottom of the same barrel for their candidates, thus the elections
are always a contest between two disasters.
Sam F , January 25, 2018 at 7:02 am
Good that you both see the bipartisan corruption and can table background issues.
Joe Tedesky , January 25, 2018 at 9:09 am
Yeah Sam I was impressed by their conversation as well. Joe
Bob Van Noy , January 25, 2018 at 11:05 am
I agree, an excellent thread plus a civil disagreement. In my experience, only at CN. Thanks to all of you.
Realist , January 25, 2018 at 1:04 pm
I am with you, Annie, when you state that "They [the Democrats] abandoned their working class base decades ago and they pretty
much shun liberals within their own party, and pander to the top 10 percent in this country." And yet they are so glibly characterised
as "liberal" by nearly everyone in the media (and, of course, by the Republicans). Even the Nate Silver group, whom I used to
think was objective is propagating the drivel that Democrats have become inexorably more liberal–and to the extreme–in their latest
soireé analysing the two parties:
In reality, the Dems are only "liberal" in contrast to the hard right shift of the Republicans over the past 50-60 years. And
what was "extreme" for both parties is being sold to the public as moderate and conventional by the corporate media. It's almost
funny seeing so much public policy being knee-jerk condemned as "leftist" when the American left became extinct decades ago.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Annie, it's not just the Democrats who are bought and paid for.
Annie , January 25, 2018 at 2:54 pm
Virginia, I didn't say that only the democrats were bought and paid for, but said, " yes, both parties proclaim their allegiance
to their voting base, but both parties are lying, since in my opinion their base is the corporate world and that world pretty
much controls their agenda, and both parties have embraced the neocons that push for war." I also mentioned that the republicans
pander to the top 1 percent in this country.
Virginia , January 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm
And my reply was meant to say,
It's not just the Democrats who pander to the 1% who have bought and paid for them!
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
It you need to read a singe article analyzing current anti-Russian hysteria in the USA this in the one you should read. This is
an excellent article Simply great !!! And as of December 2017 it represents the perfect summary of Russiagate, Hillary defeat and, Neo-McCarthyism
campaign launched as a method of hiding the crisis of neoliberalism revealed by Presidential elections. It also suggest that growing
jingoism of both Parties (return to Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation' bulling. Both Trump and Albright assume that the
United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena) and loss of the confidence and paranoia of the US
neoliberal elite.
It contain many important observation which in my view perfectly catch the complexity of the current Us political landscape.
Bravo to Jackson Lears !!!
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress ..."
"... Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed. ..."
"... A story that had circulated during the campaign without much effect resurfaced: it involved the charge that Russian operatives had hacked into the servers of the Democratic National Committee, revealing embarrassing emails that damaged Clinton's chances. With stunning speed, a new centrist-liberal orthodoxy came into being, enveloping the major media and the bipartisan Washington establishment. This secular religion has attracted hordes of converts in the first year of the Trump presidency. In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s. ..."
"... The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. ..."
"... Like any orthodoxy worth its salt, the religion of the Russian hack depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords. Its scriptural foundation is a confused and largely fact-free 'assessment' produced last January by a small number of 'hand-picked' analysts – as James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, described them – from the CIA, the FBI and the NSA. ..."
"... It is not the first time the intelligence agencies have played this role. When I hear the Intelligence Community Assessment cited as a reliable source, I always recall the part played by the New York Times in legitimating CIA reports of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's putative weapons of mass destruction, not to mention the long history of disinformation (a.k.a. 'fake news') as a tactic for advancing one administration or another's political agenda. Once again, the established press is legitimating pronouncements made by the Church Fathers of the national security state. Clapper is among the most vigorous of these. He perjured himself before Congress in 2013, when he denied that the NSA had 'wittingly' spied on Americans – a lie for which he has never been held to account. ..."
"... In May 2017, he told NBC's Chuck Todd that the Russians were highly likely to have colluded with Trump's campaign because they are 'almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favour, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique'. The current orthodoxy exempts the Church Fathers from standards imposed on ordinary people, and condemns Russians – above all Putin – as uniquely, 'almost genetically' diabolical. ..."
"... It's hard for me to understand how the Democratic Party, which once felt scepticism towards the intelligence agencies, can now embrace the CIA and the FBI as sources of incontrovertible truth. One possible explanation is that Trump's election has created a permanent emergency in the liberal imagination, based on the belief that the threat he poses is unique and unprecedented. It's true that Trump's menace is viscerally real. But the menace posed by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was equally real. ..."
"... Trump is committed to continuing his predecessors' lavish funding of the already bloated Defence Department, and his Fortress America is a blustering, undisciplined version of Madeleine Albright's 'indispensable nation'. Both Trump and Albright assume that the United States should be able to do as it pleases in the international arena: Trump because it's the greatest country in the world, Albright because it's an exceptional force for global good. ..."
"... Besides Trump's supposed uniqueness, there are two other assumptions behind the furore in Washington: the first is that the Russian hack unquestionably occurred, and the second is that the Russians are our implacable enemies. ..."
"... So far, after months of 'bombshells' that turn out to be duds, there is still no actual evidence for the claim that the Kremlin ordered interference in the American election. Meanwhile serious doubts have surfaced about the technical basis for the hacking claims. Independent observers have argued it is more likely that the emails were leaked from inside, not hacked from outside. On this front, the most persuasive case was made by a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, former employees of the US intelligence agencies who distinguished themselves in 2003 by debunking Colin Powell's claim that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, hours after Powell had presented his pseudo-evidence at the UN. ..."
"... The crucial issue here and elsewhere is the exclusion from public discussion of any critical perspectives on the orthodox narrative, even the perspectives of people with professional credentials and a solid track record. ..."
"... Sceptical voices, such as those of the VIPS, have been drowned out by a din of disinformation. Flagrantly false stories, like the Washington Post report that the Russians had hacked into the Vermont electrical grid, are published, then retracted 24 hours later. Sometimes – like the stories about Russian interference in the French and German elections – they are not retracted even after they have been discredited. These stories have been thoroughly debunked by French and German intelligence services but continue to hover, poisoning the atmosphere, confusing debate. ..."
"... The consequence is a spreading confusion that envelops everything. Epistemological nihilism looms, but some people and institutions have more power than others to define what constitutes an agreed-on reality. ..."
"... More genuine insurgencies are in the making, which confront corporate power and connect domestic with foreign policy, but they face an uphill battle against the entrenched money and power of the Democratic leadership – the likes of Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons and the DNC. Russiagate offers Democratic elites a way to promote party unity against Trump-Putin, while the DNC purges Sanders's supporters. ..."
"... Fusion GPS eventually produced the trash, a lurid account written by the former British MI6 intelligence agent Christopher Steele, based on hearsay purchased from anonymous Russian sources. Amid prostitutes and golden showers, a story emerged: the Russian government had been blackmailing and bribing Donald Trump for years, on the assumption that he would become president some day and serve the Kremlin's interests. In this fantastic tale, Putin becomes a preternaturally prescient schemer. Like other accusations of collusion, this one has become vaguer over time, adding to the murky atmosphere without ever providing any evidence. ..."
"... Yet the FBI apparently took the Steele dossier seriously enough to include a summary of it in a secret appendix to the Intelligence Community Assessment. Two weeks before the inauguration, James Comey, the director of the FBI, described the dossier to Trump. After Comey's briefing was leaked to the press, the website Buzzfeed published the dossier in full, producing hilarity and hysteria in the Washington establishment. ..."
"... The Steele dossier inhabits a shadowy realm where ideology and intelligence, disinformation and revelation overlap. It is the antechamber to the wider system of epistemological nihilism created by various rival factions in the intelligence community: the 'tree of smoke' that, for the novelist Denis Johnson, symbolised CIA operations in Vietnam. ..."
"... Yet the Democratic Party has now embarked on a full-scale rehabilitation of the intelligence community – or at least the part of it that supports the notion of Russian hacking. (We can be sure there is disagreement behind the scenes.) And it is not only the Democratic establishment that is embracing the deep state. Some of the party's base, believing Trump and Putin to be joined at the hip, has taken to ranting about 'treason' like a reconstituted John Birch Society. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has now developed a new outlook on the world, a more ambitious partnership between liberal humanitarian interventionists and neoconservative militarists than existed under the cautious Obama. This may be the most disastrous consequence for the Democratic Party of the new anti-Russian orthodoxy: the loss of the opportunity to formulate a more humane and coherent foreign policy. The obsession with Putin has erased any possibility of complexity from the Democratic world picture, creating a void quickly filled by the monochrome fantasies of Hillary Clinton and her exceptionalist allies. ..."
"... For people like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, war is a desirable state of affairs, especially when viewed from the comfort of their keyboards, and the rest of the world – apart from a few bad guys – is filled with populations who want to build societies just like ours: pluralistic, democratic and open for business. This view is difficult to challenge when it cloaks itself in humanitarian sentiment. There is horrific suffering in the world; the US has abundant resources to help relieve it; the moral imperative is clear. There are endless forms of international engagement that do not involve military intervention. But it is the path taken by US policy often enough that one may suspect humanitarian rhetoric is nothing more than window-dressing for a more mundane geopolitics – one that defines the national interest as global and virtually limitless. ..."
"... The prospect of impeaching Trump and removing him from office by convicting him of collusion with Russia has created an atmosphere of almost giddy anticipation among leading Democrats, allowing them to forget that the rest of the Republican Party is composed of many politicians far more skilful in Washington's ways than their president will ever be. ..."
"... They are posing an overdue challenge to the long con of neoliberalism, and the technocratic arrogance that led to Clinton's defeat in Rust Belt states. Recognising that the current leadership will not bring about significant change, they are seeking funding from outside the DNC. ..."
"... Democrat leaders have persuaded themselves (and much of their base) that all the republic needs is a restoration of the status quo ante Trump. They remain oblivious to popular impatience with familiar formulas. ..."
"... Democratic insurgents are also developing a populist critique of the imperial hubris that has sponsored multiple failed crusades, extorted disproportionate sacrifice from the working class and provoked support for Trump, who presented himself (however misleadingly) as an opponent of open-ended interventionism. On foreign policy, the insurgents face an even more entrenched opposition than on domestic policy: a bipartisan consensus aflame with outrage at the threat to democracy supposedly posed by Russian hacking. Still, they may have found a tactical way forward, by focusing on the unequal burden borne by the poor and working class in the promotion and maintenance of American empire. ..."
"... This approach animates Autopsy: The Democratic Party in Crisis, a 33-page document whose authors include Norman Solomon, founder of the web-based insurgent lobby RootsAction.org. 'The Democratic Party's claims of fighting for "working families" have been undermined by its refusal to directly challenge corporate power, enabling Trump to masquerade as a champion of the people,' Autopsy announces. ..."
"... Clinton's record of uncritical commitment to military intervention allowed Trump to have it both ways, playing to jingoist resentment while posing as an opponent of protracted and pointless war. ..."
"... If the insurgent movements within the Democratic Party begin to formulate an intelligent foreign policy critique, a re-examination may finally occur. And the world may come into sharper focus as a place where American power, like American virtue, is limited. For this Democrat, that is an outcome devoutly to be wished. It's a long shot, but there is something happening out there. ..."
American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are
troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership's failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign.
Bernie Sanders's challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump's triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as
usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington.
Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means
of fighting evil in order to secure global progress . Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered
their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a
widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus. For about a week after the election, pundits discussed the possibility of a more
capacious Democratic strategy. It appeared that the party might learn something from Clinton's defeat. Then everything changed.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
The fact that he is employed by Guardia tells a lot how low Guardian fall. It's a yellow press (owned by intelligence agencies
if we talk about their coverage of Russia).
Notable quotes:
"... In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy Scahill accurately described as "brutal". ..."
"... Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the appearance of a legitimate argument. ..."
"... That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority - Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument. ..."
Have you ever wondered why mainstream media outlets, despite being so fond of dramatic panel
debates on other hot-button issues, never have critics of the Russiagate narrative on to debate
those who advance it? Well, in a recent Real News interview we received an extremely
clear answer to that question, and it was so epic it deserves its own article.
Real News host and producer Aaron Maté has recently emerged as one of the most
articulate critics of the establishment Russia narrative and the Trump-Russia conspiracy
theory, and has published in The Nation some of the
clearest
arguments against both that I've yet seen. Luke Harding is a journalist for The Guardian
where he has been
writing prolifically in promotion of the Russiagate narrative, and is the author of
New
York Times bestseller Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald
Trump Win.
In theory, it would be hard to find two journalists more qualified to debate each side of
this important issue. In practice, it was a one-sided thrashing that The Intercept 's Jeremy
Scahill accurately described as "brutal".
The term Gish gallop
, named after a Young Earth creationist who was notoriously fond of employing it, refers to a
fallacious debate tactic in which a bunch of individually weak arguments are strung together in
rapid-fire succession in order to create the illusion of a solid argument and overwhelm the
opposition's ability to refute them all in the time allotted. Throughout the discussion the
Gish gallop appeared to be the only tool that Luke Harding brought to the table, firing out a
deluge of feeble and unsubstantiated arguments only to be stopped over and over again by
Maté who kept pointing out when Harding was making a false or fallacious claim.
In this part here , for
example, the following exchange takes place while Harding is already against the ropes on the
back of a previous failed argument. I'm going to type this up so you can clearly see what's
happening here:
Harding: Look, I'm a journalist. I'm a storyteller. I'm not a kind of head of the CIA or
the NSA. But what I can tell you is that there have been similar operations in France, most
recently when President Macron was elected ? -
Harding: Yeah. But, if you'll let me finish, there've been attacks on the German parliament ?
-
Maté: Okay, but wait Luke, do you concede that the France hack that you just claimed
didn't happen?
Harding: [pause] What? -- ?that it didn't happen? Sorry?
Maté: Do you concede that the Russian hacking of the French election that you just
claimed actually is not true?
Harding: [pause] Well, I mean that it's not true? I mean, the French report was inconclusive,
but you have to look at this kind of contextually. We've seen attacks on other European
states as well from Russia, they have very kind of advanced cyber capabilities.
Maté: Where else?
Harding: Well, Estonia. Have you heard of Estonia? It's a state in the Baltics which was
crippled by a massive cyber attack in 2008, which certainly all kind of western European and
former eastern European states think was carried out by Moscow. I mean I was in Moscow at the
time, when relations between the two countries were extremely bad. This is a kind of ongoing
thing. Now you might say, quite legitimately, well the US does the same thing, the UK does
the same thing, and I think to a certain extent that is certainly right. I think what was
different last year was the attempt to kind of dump this stuff out into kind of US public
space and try and influence public opinion there. That's unusual. And of course that's a
matter of congressional inquiry and something Mueller is looking at too.
Maté: Right. But again, my problem here is that the examples that are frequently
presented to substantiate claims of this massive Russian hacking operation around the world
prove out to be false. So France as I mentioned; you also mentioned Germany. There was a lot
of worry about Russian hacking of the German elections, but it turned out? -- ?and there's
plenty of articles since then that have acknowledged this? - ? that actually there was no
Russian hack in Germany.
In the above exchange, Maté derailed Harding's Gish gallop, and Harding actually
admonished him for doing so, telling him "let me finish" and attempting to go on listing more
flimsy examples to bolster his case as though he hadn't just begun his Gish gallop with a
completely
false example .
That's really all Harding brought to the debate. A bunch of individually weak arguments, the
fact that he speaks Russian and has lived in Moscow, and the occasional straw man where he tries to imply that
Maté is claiming that Vladimir Putin is an innocent girl scout. Meanwhile Maté
just kept patiently dragging the debate back on track over and over again in the most polite
obliteration of a man that I have ever witnessed.
The entire interview followed this basic script. Harding makes an unfounded claim,
Maté holds him to the fact that it's unfounded, Harding sputters a bit and tries to zoom
things out and point to a bigger-picture analysis of broader trends to distract from the fact
that he'd just made an individual claim that was baseless, then winds up implying that
Maté is only skeptical of the claims because he hasn't lived in Russia as Harding
has.
jeremy scahill 0
@jeremyscahill
This @aaronjmate interview is brutal. He makes mincemeat of Luke Harding, who can't seem to
defend the thesis, much less the title, of his own book: Where's the 'Collusion' -
YouTube
11:03 AM-Dec 25, 2017
Q 131 11597 C? 1,148
The interview ended when Harding once again implied that Maté was only skeptical of
the collusion narrative because he'd never been to Russia and seen what a right-wing oppressive
government it is, after which the following exchange took place:
Maté: I don't think I've countered anything you've said about the state of Vladimir
Putin's Russia. The issue under discussion today has been whether there was collusion, the
topic of your book.
Harding: Yeah, but you're clearly a kind of collusion rejectionist, so I'm not sure what sort
of evidence short of Trump and Putin in a sauna together would convince you. Clearly nothing
would convince you. But anyway it's been a pleasure.
At which point Harding abruptly logged off the video chat, leaving Maté to wrap up
the show and promote Harding's book on his own.
You should definitely watch this debate for yourself , and enjoy
it, because I will be shocked if we ever see another like it. Harding's fate will serve as a
cautionary tale for the establishment hacks who've built their careers advancing the Russiagate
conspiracy theory , and it's highly unlikely that any of them will ever make the mistake of
trying to debate anyone of Maté's caliber again.
The reason Russiagaters speak so often in broad, sweeping terms? - saying there are too many
suspicious things happening for there not to be a there there, that there's too much smoke for
there not to be fire? - ? is because when you zoom in and focus on any individual part of their
conspiracy theory, it falls apart under the slightest amount of critical thinking (or as
Harding calls it, "collusion rejectionism"). Russiagate only works if you allow it to remain
zoomed out, where the individually weak arguments of this giant Gish gallop fallacy form the
appearance of a legitimate argument.
Well, Harding did say he's a storyteller.
* * *
Thanks for reading! My work here is entirely reader-funded so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following me on Twitter , bookmarking my website , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , or buying my new book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers . Our Hidden History4
days ago (edited) That Harding tells Mate to meet Alexi Navalny, who is a far right
nationalist and most certainly a tool of US intelligence (something like Russia's Richard
Spencer) was all I needed to hear to understand where Luke is coming from.
He's little more than an intelligence asset himself if his idea of speaking to "Russians" is
to go and speak to a bunch of people who most certainly have their own ties back to the western
intelligence agencies.
That's not how you're going to get the truth about Russia. He's all appeals to authority -
Steele's most of all, even name dropping Kerry. To finally land on "oh well if you would read
my whole book" is just getting to the silly season. Also "well this is the kind of person Putin
is" is a terrible argument. This isn't about either Putin or Trump really, its about the long
history of US-Russia relations and all that has occurred. Also, the ubiquitous throwing around
of accusations of the murder of journalists in Russia is a straw man argument, especially when
it is just thrown in as some sort of moral shielding for a shabby argument.
Few in the US know
about these cases or what occurred, or of the many forces inside of Russia that might be
involved in murdering journalists just as in Mexico or Turkey. But these cases are not
explained - blame is merely assigned to Putin himself. Of course if someone here discusses he
death of Michael Hastings, they're a "conspiracy theorist", but if the crime involves a Russian
were to assign the blame to Vladimir Putin and, no further explanation is required.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
"... Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common good ..."
"... Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and healthcare. ..."
Gessen felt
that the Russiagate gambit would flop, given a lack of smoking-gun evidence and sufficient
public interest, particularly among Republicans.
Gessen also worried that the Russia obsession was a deadly diversion from issues that
ought to matter more to those claiming to oppose Trump in the name of democracy and the common
good : racism, voter suppression (which may well have
elected Trump , by the way), health care, plutocracy, police- and prison-state-ism,
immigrant rights, economic exploitation and inequality, sexism and environmental ruination --
you know, stuff like that.
Some of the politically engaged populace noticed the problem early on. According to the
Washington political journal The Hill , last
summer ,
Frustrated Democrats hoping to elevate their election fortunes have a resounding
message for party leaders: Stop talking so much about Russia. Rank-and-file Democrats say the
Russia-Trump narrative is simply a non-issue with district voters, who are much more worried
about bread-and-butter economic concerns like jobs, wages and the cost of education and
healthcare.
Here we are now, half a year later, careening into a dystopian holiday season. With his
epically low approval rating of 32 percent
, the orange-tinted bad grandpa in the Oval Office has won a viciously regressive tax bill that
is widely rejected by the populace. The bill was passed by a Republican-controlled Congress
whose current
approval rating stands at 13 percent. It is a major legislative victory for the
Republicans, a party whose approval rating fell to an all-time
low of 29 percent at the end of September -- a party that tried to send a child molester to
the U.S. Senate.
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
"... The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most successful public relations campaign in modern history. ..."
"... Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the "subordination" so necessary for politics. ..."
"... When the eminent members of the landowning class met in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators, and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President. ..."
"... It is in this context that Patrick Henry flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic aristocracy." ..."
"... When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. ..."
"... Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare. ..."
"... In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections (procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained power over the governing of their lives. ..."
"... To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been, a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power. Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were democratically elected. ..."
"... It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in America's Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries, attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries, and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. ..."
One of the most steadfast beliefs regarding the United States is that it is a democracy.
Whenever this conviction waivers slightly, it is almost always to point out detrimental
exceptions to core American values or foundational principles. For instance, aspiring critics
frequently bemoan a "loss of democracy" due to the election of clownish autocrats, draconian
measures on the part of the state, the revelation of extraordinary malfeasance or corruption,
deadly foreign interventions, or other such activities that are considered undemocratic
exceptions . The same is true for those whose critical framework consists in always juxtaposing
the actions of the U.S. government to its founding principles, highlighting the contradiction
between the two and clearly placing hope in its potential resolution.
The problem, however, is that there is no contradiction or supposed loss of democracy
because the United States simply never was one. This is a difficult reality for many people to
confront, and they are likely more inclined to immediately dismiss such a claim as preposterous
rather than take the time to scrutinize the material historical record in order to see for
themselves. Such a dismissive reaction is due in large part to what is perhaps the most
successful public relations campaign in modern history.
What will be seen, however, if this record is soberly and methodically inspected, is that a
country founded on elite, colonial rule based on the power of wealth -- a plutocratic colonial
oligarchy, in short -- has succeeded not only in buying the label of "democracy" to market
itself to the masses, but in having its citizenry, and many others, so socially and
psychologically invested in its nationalist origin myth that they refuse to hear lucid and
well-documented arguments to the contrary.
To begin to peel the scales from our eyes, let us outline in the restricted space of this
article, five patent reasons why the United States has never been a democracy (a more sustained
and developed argument is available in my book, Counter-History of the Present
).
To begin with, British colonial expansion into the Americas did not occur in the name of the
freedom and equality of the general population, or the conferral of power to the people. Those
who settled on the shores of the "new world," with few exceptions, did not respect the fact
that it was a very old world indeed, and that a vast indigenous population had been living
there for centuries. As soon as Columbus set foot, Europeans began robbing, enslaving and
killing the native inhabitants. The trans-Atlantic slave trade commenced almost immediately
thereafter, adding a countless number of Africans to the ongoing genocidal assault against the
indigenous population. Moreover, it is estimated that over half of the colonists who came to
North America from Europe during the colonial period were poor indentured servants, and women
were generally trapped in roles of domestic servitude. Rather than the land of the free and
equal, then, European colonial expansion to the Americas imposed a land of the colonizer and
the colonized, the master and the slave, the rich and the poor, the free and the un-free. The
former constituted, moreover, an infinitesimally small minority of the population, whereas the
overwhelming majority, meaning "the people," was subjected to death, slavery, servitude, and
unremitting socio-economic oppression.
Second, when the elite colonial ruling class decided to sever ties from their homeland and
establish an independent state for themselves, they did not found it as a democracy. On the
contrary, they were fervently and explicitly opposed to democracy, like the vast majority of
European Enlightenment thinkers. They understood it to be a dangerous and chaotic form of
uneducated mob rule. For the so-called "founding fathers," the masses were not only incapable
of ruling, but they were considered a threat to the hierarchical social structures purportedly
necessary for good governance. In the words of John Adams, to take but one telling example, if
the majority were given real power, they would redistribute wealth and dissolve the
"subordination" so necessary for politics.
When the eminent members of the landowning class met
in 1787 to draw up a constitution, they regularly insisted in their debates on the need to
establish a republic that kept at bay vile democracy, which was judged worse than "the filth of
the common sewers" by the pro-Federalist editor William Cobbett. The new constitution provided
for popular elections only in the House of Representatives, but in most states the right to
vote was based on being a property owner, and women, the indigenous and slaves -- meaning the
overwhelming majority of the population -- were simply excluded from the franchise. Senators
were elected by state legislators, the President by electors chosen by the state legislators,
and the Supreme Court was appointed by the President.
It is in this context that Patrick Henry
flatly proclaimed the most lucid of judgments: "it is not a democracy." George Mason further
clarified the situation by describing the newly independent country as "a despotic
aristocracy."
When the American republic slowly came to be relabeled as a "democracy," there were no
significant institutional modifications to justify the change in name. In other words, and this
is the third point, the use of the term "democracy" to refer to an oligarchic republic simply
meant that a different word was being used to describe the same basic phenomenon. This began
around the time of "Indian killer" Andrew Jackson's presidential campaign in the 1830s.
Presenting himself as a 'democrat,' he put forth an image of himself as an average man of the
people who was going to put a halt to the long reign of patricians from Virginia and
Massachusetts. Slowly but surely, the term "democracy" came to be used as a public relations
term to re-brand a plutocratic oligarchy as an electoral regime that serves the interest of the
people or demos . Meanwhile, the American holocaust continued unabated, along with chattel
slavery, colonial expansion and top-down class warfare.
In spite of certain minor changes over time, the U.S. republic has doggedly preserved its
oligarchic structure, and this is readily apparent in the two major selling points of its
contemporary "democratic" publicity campaign. The Establishment and its propagandists regularly
insist that a structural aristocracy is a "democracy" because the latter is defined by the
guarantee of certain fundamental rights (legal definition) and the holding of regular elections
(procedural definition). This is, of course, a purely formal, abstract and largely negative
understanding of democracy, which says nothing whatsoever about people having real, sustained
power over the governing of their lives.
However, even this hollow definition dissimulates the
extent to which, to begin with, the supposed equality before the law in the United States
presupposes an inequality before the law by excluding major sectors of the population: those
judged not to have the right to rights, and those considered to have lost their right to rights
(Native Americans, African-Americans and women for most of the country's history, and still
today in certain aspects, as well as immigrants, "criminals," minors, the "clinically insane,"
political dissidents, and so forth). Regarding elections, they are run in the United States as
long, multi-million dollar advertising campaigns in which the candidates and issues are
pre-selected by the corporate and party elite. The general population, the majority of whom do
not have the right to vote or decide not to exercise it, are given the "choice" -- overseen by
an undemocratic electoral college and embedded in a non-proportional representation scheme --
regarding which member of the aristocratic elite they would like to have rule over and oppress
them for the next four years. "Multivariate analysis indicates," according to
an important recent study by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page, "that economic elites and
organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S.
government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no
independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite
Domination [ ], but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy."
To take but a final example of the myriad ways in which the U.S. is not, and has never been,
a democracy, it is worth highlighting its consistent assault on movements of people power.
Since WWII, it has endeavored to overthrow some 50 foreign governments, most of which were
democratically elected.
It has also, according the meticulous calculations by William Blum in
America's
Deadliest Export: Democracy , grossly interfered in the elections of at least 30 countries,
attempted to assassinate more than 50 foreign leaders, dropped bombs on more than 30 countries,
and attempted to suppress populist movements in 20 countries. The record on the home front is
just as brutal. To take but one significant parallel example, there is ample evidence that the
FBI has been invested in a covert war against democracy. Beginning at least in the 1960s, and
likely continuing up to the present, the Bureau "extended its earlier clandestine operations
against the Communist party, committing its resources to undermining the Puerto Rico
independence movement, the Socialist Workers party, the civil rights movement, Black
nationalist movements, the Ku Klux Klan, segments of the peace movement, the student movement,
and the 'New Left' in general" ( Cointelpro: The FBI's Secret War on
Political Freedom , p. 22-23).
Consider, for instance, Judi Bari's summary of its assault
on the Socialist Workers Party: "From 1943-63, the federal civil rights case Socialist Workers
Party v. Attorney General documents decades of illegal FBI break-ins and 10 million pages of
surveillance records. The FBI paid an estimated 1,600 informants $1,680,592 and used 20,000
days of wiretaps to undermine legitimate political organizing."
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
"... If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual crimes were committed during them. ..."
"... The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy has come to light. ..."
"... There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks; ..."
"... There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy. ..."
"... If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists. ..."
"... Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would countenance fishing expeditions . It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is now engaging in. ..."
"... Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said. ..."
"... Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved? ..."
"... My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos. ..."
"... Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an editorial saying that Mueller should resign. ..."
"... It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take an objective view of its actions. ..."
"... It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced that Hillary Clinton had been cleared. ..."
"... By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election, which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide. ..."
"... They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him. Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans. ..."
"... Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing. ..."
"... Strzok was obviously at a VERY senior pay grade. It would be very surprising if HR had any jobs at Strzok's pay grade. ..."
"... once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there so that it has to be renewed every 12 months... ..."
"... This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did ..."
Almost eighteen months after Obama's Justice Department and the FBI launched the Russiagate investigation, and seven months after
Special Counsel Robert Mueller took the investigation over, the sum total of what it has achieved is as follows
(1) an indictment of Paul Manafort and Rick Gates which concerns entirely their prior financial dealings, and which makes no
reference to the Russiagate collusion allegations;
(2) an indictment for lying to the FBI of George Papadopoulos, the junior volunteer staffer of the Trump campaign, who during
the 2016 Presidential election had certain contacts with members of a Moscow based Russian NGO, which he sought to pass off –
falsely and unsuccessfully – as more important than they really were, and which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion
allegations; and
(3) an indictment for lying to the FBI of Michael Flynn arising from his perfectly legitimate and entirely legal contacts with
the Russian ambassador after the 2016 Presidential election, which also does not touch on the Russiagate collusion allegations,
and which looks as if it was brought about by an
act of entrapment
.
Of actual evidence to substantiate the claims of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the election Mueller has
so far come up with nothing.
Here I wish to say something briefly about the nature of "collusion".
There is no criminal offence of "collusion" known to US law, which has led some to make the point that Mueller is investigating
a crime which does not exist.
There is some force to this point, but it is one which must be heavily qualified:
(1) Though there is no crime of "collusion" in US law, there most certainly is the crime of conspiracy to perform a criminal act.
Should it ever be established that members of the Trump campaign arranged with the Russians for the Russians to hack the DNC's
and John Podesta's computers and to steal the emails from those computers so that they could be published by Wikileaks, then since
hacking and theft are serious criminal acts a criminal conspiracy would be established, and it would be the entirely proper to do
to bring criminal charges against those who were involved in it.
This is the central allegation which lies behind the whole Russiagate case, and is the crime which Mueller is supposed to be investigating.
(2) The FBI is not merely a police and law enforcement agency. It is also the US's counter-espionage agency.
If there were secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence such as might give rise to genuine concern that
the national security of the United States might be compromised – for example because they were intended to swing the US election
from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump – then the FBI would have a legitimate reason to investigate those contacts even if no actual
crimes were committed during them.
Since impeachment is a purely political process and not a legal process, should it ever be established that there were such secret
contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United States in
jeopardy, then I have no doubt that Congress would say that there were grounds for impeachment even if no criminal offences had been
committed during them.
The point is however is that eighteen months after the start of the Russiagate investigation no evidence either of criminal acts
or of secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence which might have placed the national security of the United
States in jeopardy has come to light.
Specifically:
(1) There is no evidence of a criminal conspiracy by anyone in the Trump campaign involving the Russians. or the hacking of
John Podesta's and the DNC's computers in order to steal emails from those computers and to have them published by Wikileaks;
and
(2) There is also no evidence of any secret contacts between the Trump campaign and Russian intelligence during the election
which might have placed the national security of the United States in jeopardy.
Such contacts as did take place between the Trump campaign and the Russians were limited and innocuous and had no effect on the
outcome of the election. Specifically there is no evidence of any concerted action between the Trump campaign and the Russians to
swing the election from Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump.
As I have previously discussed, the meeting between Donald Trump Junior and the Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya is
not such evidence .
If no evidence either of a criminal conspiracy or of inappropriate secret contacts by the Trump campaign and the Russians has
been found after eighteen months of intense investigation by the biggest and mightiest national security and intelligence community
on the planet, then any reasonable person would conclude that that must be because no such evidence exists.
Why then is the investigation still continuing?
Some months I expressed doubts that Special Counsel Robert Mueller and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein would
countenance fishing expeditions. It turns out I was wrong. On any objective assessment it is exactly such fishing expeditions that the Mueller investigation is
now engaging in.
How else to explain the strange decision to subpoena Deutsche Bank for information about loans granted by Deutsche Bank to Donald
Trump and his businesses?
Deutsche Bank is a German bank not a Russian bank. To insinuate that the Russians control Deutsche Bank – one of the world's leading
international banks – because Deutsche Bank has had some previous financial dealings with various Russian banks and businesses is
quite simply preposterous. I doubt that there is a single important bank in Germany or Austria of which that could not also be said.
Yet in the desperation to find some connection between Donald Trump and Russia it is to these absurdities that Mueller is reduced
to.
Which again begs the question why? Why are Mueller and the Justice Department resorting to these increasingly desperate actions
in order to prove something which it ought to be obvious by now cannot be proved?
My colleague Alex Christoforou has recently pointed out that the recent indictment of Michael Flynn seems to have been
partly intended to shield Mueller from dismissal and to keep his Russiagate investigation alive. Some time ago I made exactly the same point about
the indictments against Paul Manafort and Rick Gates and about the indictment against George Papadopoulos.
Those indictments were issued directly after the Wall Street Journal published an
editorial saying that Mueller
should resign.
The indictment against Manafort and Gates looks sloppy and rushed. Perhaps I am wrong but there has to be at least a suspicion
that the indictments were issued in a hurry to still criticism of Mueller of the kind that was now appearing in the Wall Street Journal.
Presumably the reason the indictment against Flynn was delayed was because his lawyers had just signaled Flynn's interest in
a plea bargain, and it took a few more weeks of negotiating to work that out.
It is the Wall Street Journal editorial which in fact provides the answer to Mueller's and Rosenstein's otherwise strange behaviour
and to the way that Mueller has conducted the investigation up to now. The Wall Street Journal's editorial says that Mueller's past as the FBI's Director means that he is too close to the FBI to take
an objective view of its actions.
In fact the Wall Street Journal was more right than it perhaps realised. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the FBI's
actions are open to very serious criticism to say the least, and that Mueller is simply not the person who can be trusted to take
an objective view of those actions.
Over the course of the 2016 election the FBI cleared Hillary Clinton over her illegal use of a private server to route classified
emails whilst she was Secretary of State though it is universally agreed that she broke the law by doing so.
The FBI does not seem to have even considered investigating Hillary Clinton for possible obstruction of justice after it also
became known that she had actually destroyed thousands of her emails which passed through her private server, though that was an
obvious thing to do.
It is universally agreed that the FBI's then Director – Mueller's friend James Comey – broke protocols by the way he announced
that Hillary Clinton had been cleared.
By failing to bring charges against Hillary Clinton the FBI ensured that she would win the Democratic Party's nomination, and
that she not Bernie Sanders would face off against Donald Trump in the election in the autumn. That is important because though the eventual – completely unexpected – election outcome was that Donald Trump won the election,
which Hillary Clinton lost, every opinion poll which I have seen suggests that if the election had been between Bernie Sanders and
Donald Trump then Bernie Sanders would have won by a landslide.
In other words it was because of the FBI's actions in the first half of 2016 that Bernie Sanders is not now the President of the
United States.
In addition instead of independently investigating the DNC's claims that the Russians had hacked the DNC's and John Podesta's
computers, the FBI simply accepted the opinion of an expert – Crowdstrike – paid for by the DNC, which it is now known was partly
funded and was entirely controlled by the Hillary Clinton campaign, that hacks of those computers had actually taken place and that
the Russians were the perpetrators.
As a result Hillary Clinton was able to say during the election that the reason emails which had passed through those computers
and which showed her and her campaign in a bad light were being published by Wikileaks was because the Russians had stolen the emails
by hacking the computers in order to help Donald Trump.
It is now known that the FBI also met with Christopher Steele, the compiler of the Trump Dossier, who is now known to have been
in the pay of the DNC and Hillary Clinton's campaign. The first meeting apparently took place in early July 2016, shortly before
the Russiagate investigation was launched.
Whilst there is some confusion about whether the FBI actually paid Steele for his information, it is now known that Steele was
in contact with the FBI throughout the election and continued to be so after, and that the FBI gave credence to his work.
Recently it has also come to light that Steele was also directly in touch with Obama's Justice Department, a fact which was only
disclosed recently.
The best
account of this has been provided by Byron York writing for The Washington Examiner
The department's Bruce Ohr, a career official, served as associate deputy attorney general at the time of the campaign. That
placed him just below the deputy attorney general, Sally Yates, who ran the day-to-day operations of the department. In 2016,
Ohr's office was just steps away from Yates, who was later fired for defying President Trump's initial travel ban executive order
and still later became a prominent anti-Trump voice upon leaving the Justice Department.
Unbeknownst to investigators until recently, Ohr knew Steele and had repeated contacts with Steele when Steele was working
on the dossier. Ohr also met after the election with Glenn Simpson, head of Fusion GPS, the opposition research company that was
paid by the Clinton campaign to compile the dossier.
Word that Ohr met with Steele and Simpson, first reported by Fox News' James Rosen and Jake Gibson, was news to some current
officials in the Justice Department. Shortly after learning it, they demoted Ohr, taking away his associate deputy attorney general
title and moving him full time to another position running the department's organized crime drug enforcement task forces.
It is also now known that over the course of the election the FBI – on the basis of information in the Trump Dossier – obtained
at least one warrant from the FISA court which made it possible for it to undertake surveillance during and after the election of
persons belonging to involved the campaign team of Hillary Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
In response to subpoenas issued at the instigation of the Congressman Devin Nunes the FBI has recently admitted that
the Trump Dossier cannot be verified
.
However the FBI and the Justice Department have so far failed to provide in response to these subpoenas information about the
precise role of the Trump Dossier in triggering the Russiagate investigation.
The FBI's and the Justice Department's failure to provide this information recently provoked an angry exchange between FBI Director
Christopher Wray and Congressman Jim Jordan during a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.
During that hearing Jordan said to Wray the following
Let's remember a couple of things about the dossier. The Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign, which we now
know were one and the same, paid the law firm who paid Fusion GPS who paid Christopher Steele who then paid Russians to put together
a report that we call a dossier full of all kinds of fake news, National Enquirer garbage and it's been reported that this dossier
was all dressed up by the FBI, taken to the FISA court and presented as a legitimate intelligence document -- that it became the
basis for a warrant to spy on Americans.
In response Wray refused to say officially whether or not the Trump Dossier played any role in the FBI obtaining the FISA warrants.
This was so even though officials of the FBI – including former FBI Director James Comey – have slipped out in earlier Congressional
testimony that it did.
This is also despite the fact that this information is not classified and ought already to have been provided by the Justice Department
and the FBI in response to Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
There is now talk of FBI Director Christopher Wray and of Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein being held in contempt of Congress
because of the failure of the Justice Department and the FBI to comply with Congressman Nunes's subpoenas.
During the exchanges between Wray and Jordan at the hearing in the House Judiciary Committee Jordan also had this to say
Here's what I think -- I think Peter Strozk (sic) Mr. Super Agent at the FBI, I think he's the guy who took the application
to the FISA court and if that happened, if this happened , if you have the FBI working with a campaign, the Democrats' campaign,
taking opposition research, dressing it all up and turning it into an intelligence document so they can take it to the FISA court
so they can spy on the other campaign, if that happened, that is as wrong as it gets
Peter Strzok is the senior FBI official who is now known to have had a leading role in both the FBI's investigation of Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her private server and in the Russiagate investigation.
Strzok is now also known to have been the person who changed the wording in Comey's statement clearing Hillary Clinton for her
misuse of her private email server to say that Hillary Clinton had been "extremely careless'" as opposed to "grossly negligent".
Strzok – who was the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence – is now also known to have been the person who signed the
document which launched the Russiagate investigation in July 2016.
Fox News has
reported that Strzok was also the person who supervised the FBI's questioning of Michael Flynn. It is not clear whether this
covers the FBI's interview with Flynn on 24th January 2017 during which Flynn lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador. However it is likely that it does.
If so then this is potentially important given that it was Flynn's lying to the FBI during this interview which made up the case
against him and to which he has now pleaded guilty. It is potentially even more important given the strong indications that Flynn's
interview with the FBI on 24th January 2017 was
a set-up intended
to entrap him by tricking him into lying to the FBI.
As the FBI's deputy director of counter-intelligence it is also highly likely that it was Strozk who was the official within the
FBI who supervised the FBI's contacts with Christopher Steele, and who would have been the official within the FBI who was provided
by Steele with the Trump Dossier and who would have made the first assessment of the Trump Dossier.
Recently it has been disclosed that Special Counsel Mueller sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation supposedly after it
was discovered that Strzok had been sending anti-Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton messages to Lisa Page, an FBI lawyer with whom he
was having an affair.
These messages were sent by Strzok to his lover during the election, but apparently only came to light in July this year, when
Mueller supposedly sacked Strzok because of them.
It seems that since then Strzok has been working in the FBI's human resources department, an astonishing demotion for the FBI's
former deputy director for counter-intelligence who was apparently previously considered the FBI's top expert on Russia.
Some people have questioned whether the sending of the messages could possibly be the true reason why Strzok was sacked. My colleague
Alex Christoforou has
reported on some
of the bafflement that this extraordinary sacking and demotion has caused.
Business Insider reports the anguished comments of former FBI officials incredulous that Strzok could have been sacked for such
a trivial reason. Here is what Business Insider
reports
one ex FBI official Mark Rossini as having said
It would be literally impossible for one human being to have the power to change or manipulate evidence or intelligence according
to their own political preferences. FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs.
If anything, the overwhelming majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
This is obviously right. Though the ex-FBI officials questioned by Business Insider are clearly supporters of Strzok and critics
of Donald Trump,
the same point has been made from the other side of the political divide by Congressman Jim Jordan
If you get kicked off the Mueller team for being anti-Trump, there wouldn't be anybody left on the Mueller team. There has
to be more
Adding to the mystery about Strzok's sacking is why the FBI took five months to confirm it.
Mueller apparently sacked Strzok from the Russiagate investigation in July and it was apparently then that Strzok was simultaneously
sacked from his previous post of deputy director for counter-espionage and transferred to human resources. The FBI has however only
disclosed his sacking now, five months later and only in response to demands for information from Congressional investigators.
There is in fact an obvious explanation for Strzok's sacking and the strange circumstances surrounding it, and I am sure that
it is the one which Congressman Jordan had in mind during his angry exchanges with FBI Director Christopher Wray.
I suspect that Congressman Jordan believes that the true reason why Strzok was sacked is that Strzok's credibility had become
so tied to the Trump Dossier that when its credibility collapsed over the course of the summer when the FBI finally realised that
it could not be verified his credibility collapsed with it.
If so then I am sure that Congressman Jordan is right.
We now know from a variety of sources but first and foremost from the
testimony to Congress of Carter Page
that the Trump Dossier provided the frame narrative for the Russiagate investigation until just a few months ago.
We also know that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report about supposed Russian meddling in
the 2016 election which was shown by the US intelligence chiefs to President elect Trump during their stormy meeting with him on
8th January 2017.
The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year the
top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
The June 2017 article in the Washington Post (discussed by me
here ) also all but confirms that it was
the Trump Dossier that provided the information which the CIA sent to President Obama in August 2016 which supposedly 'proved' that
the Russians were interfering in the election.
As the BBC has pointed out , it was also the
Trump Dossier which Congressman Adam Schiff – the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Community, who appears to be very close
to some of the FBI investigators involved in the Russiagate case – as well as the FBI's Russiagate investigators were using as the
narrative frame when questioning witnesses about their supposed role in Russiagate.
These facts make it highly likely that it was indeed the Trump Dossier which provided the information which the FBI used to obtain
all the surveillance warrants the FBI obtained from the FISA court during the 2016 election and afterwards.
Strzok's position as the FBI's deputy director for counter-intelligence makes it highly likely that he was the key official within
the FBI who decided that the Trump Dossier should be given credence, whilst his known actions during the Hillary Clinton private
server investigation and during the Russiagate investigation make it highly likely that it was he who was the official within the
FBI who sought and obtained the FISA warrants.
Given Strzok's central role in the Russiagate investigation going back all the way to its start in July 2016, there also has to
be a possibility that it was Strzok who was behind many of the leaks coming from the investigation which so destabilised the Trump
administration at the start of the year.
This once again points to the true scandal of the 2016 election.
On the strength of a fake Dossier paid for by the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign the Justice Department, the FBI and the
US intelligence community carried out surveillance during the election of US citizens who were members of the campaign team of Hillary
Clinton's opponent Donald Trump.
Given the hugely embarrassing implications of this for the FBI, it is completely understandable why Strzok, if he was the person
who was ultimately responsible for this debacle – as he very likely was – and if he was responsible for some of the leaks – as he
very likely also was – was sacked and exiled to human resources when it was finally concluded that the Trump Dossier upon which all
the FBI's actions were based could not be verified.
It would also explain why the FBI sought to keep Strzok's sacking secret, so that it was only disclosed five months after it happened
and then only in response to questions from Congressional investigators, with a cover story about inappropriate anti-Trump messages
being spread about in order to explain it.
This surely is also the reason why in defiance both of evidence and logic the Russiagate investigation continues.
Given the debacle the Justice Department, the FBI and the US intelligence community are facing, it is completely understandable
why they should want to keep the Russiagate investigation alive in order to draw attention away from their own activities.
Put in this way it is Robert Mueller's investigation which is the cover-up, and the surveillance which is the wrongdoing that
the cover up is trying to excuse or conceal, which is what
I said nine months ago in March .
When the suggestion of appointing a second Special Counsel was first floated last month the suggestion was that the focus of the
second Special Counsel's investigation would be the Uranium One affair.
That always struck me as misconceived not because there may not be things to investigate in the Uranium One case but because the
focus of any new investigation should be what happened during the 2016 election, not what happened during the Uranium one case.
Congressman Jordan has now correctly identified the surveillance of US citizens by the US national security bureaucracy during
the election as the primary focus of the proposed investigation to be conducted by the second Special Counsel.
In truth there should be no second Special Counsel. Since there is no Russiagate collusion to investigate the Russiagate investigation
– ie. the investigation headed by Mueller – should be wound up.
There should be only one Special Counsel tasked with looking into what is the real scandal of the 2016 election: the surveillance
of US citizens carried out during the election by the US national security bureaucracy on the basis of the Trump Dossier.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes (recently
cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman Jordan
are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
Top Clinton Aides Face No Charges After Making False Statements To FBI
Neither of the Clinton associates, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, faced legal consequences for their misleading statements,
which they made in interviews last year with former FBI section chief Peter Strzok.
These are acts to overthrow the legitimate government of the USA and therefore constitute treason. Treason is still punishable
by death. It is time for some public hangings. Trump should declare martial law. Put Patraeus and Flint in charge and drain the
swamp like he promised...
Absolutely. This is not political, about justice or corruption or election coercion, this is about keeping the fires lit under
Trump, no matter how lame or lying, in the hopes that something, anything, will arise that could be used to unseat Trump. Something
that by itself would be controversial but ultimately a nothing-burger, but piled upon the months and years of lies used to build
a false consensus of corruption, criminality and impropriety of Trump. Their goal has always been to undermine Trump by convincing
the world that Trump is evil and unfit using nothing but lies, that without Trump's endless twitter counters would have buried
him by now. While they know that can't convince a significant majority that these lies are true, what they can do is convince
the majority that everyone else thinks it true, thereby in theory enabling them to unseat Trump with minimal resistance, assuming
many will simply stand down in the face of a PERCEIVED overwhelming majority.
This is about constructing a false premise that they can use minimal FACTS to confirm. They are trying and testing every day
this notion with continuing probes and jabs in hopes that something....anything, sticks.
Mueller is a lot of things, but he is a politician, and skilled at that, as he has survived years in Washington.
So why choose KNOWN partisans for your investigation? He may not have known about Strzok, but he surely knew about Weitsmann's
ties to HRC, about Rhee being Rhodes personal attorney,..so why put them on, knowing that the investigations credibility would
be damaged? No way most of this would not come out, just due to the constant leaks from the FBI/DOJ.
What is the real goal, other than taking Trump down and covering up FBI/DOJ/Obama Admin malfeasance? These goons are all highly
experienced swamp dwellers, so I think there is something that is being missed here..
" The fact that the Trump Dossier was included in an appendix to the January ODNI report shows that at the start of this year
the top officials of the FBI and of the US intelligence community – Comey, Clapper, Brennan and the rest – believed in its truth.
"
Oh, bull crap. None of them believed a word of it, and at least some of them were in on the dossier's creation.
They just wanted to put over their impeach/resist/remove scam on us deplorables so they could hang on to power and maintain
secrecy over all their years of criminal activity.
The FBI is a fraud on the sheeple. Indoctrinated sheeple believe FBI testimony. The M.O. of the FBI is entrapment of victims
and entrapped witnesses against victims using their Form 302 interrogations. The FBI uses forensic evidence from which gullible
juries trust the FBI financed reports. Power corrupts. The power to be believed because of indoctrination corrupts absolutely.
Keep your powder dry. Hold your fire until you see the whites of their eyes.
All this crap comes down to ONE THING: Sessions ... why he refuses to fire a mega-conflicted and corrupt POS Mueller...
Investigative reporter Sarah Carter hinted (last Friday?) that something big would be happening "probably within the next forty-eight
hours". She related this specifically to a comment that Sessions had been virtually invisible.
I will make a prediction:
THE COMING WEEK WILL BE A TUMULTUOUS WEEK FOR THOSE OBSESSED BY THE "RUSSIA COLLUSION CONSPIRACY" .
First, Sessions will announce significant findings and actions which will directly attack the Trump-Russia-Collusion narrative.
And then, the Democrats/Media/Hillary Campaign will launch a hystierical, viscious, demented political counter attack in a
final onslaught to take down Trump.
They played Sessions like a violin. Sessions recluses himself for a bullcrap Kisnyak speech, where he did not even meet him.
Rosenstein then recommends Trump fire Comey -- who wanted to be fired so they would appoint a special prosecutor -- which Rosenstein
does -- Mueller, to the acclamation of ALL of Con and the Senate-including Republicans.
When Trump tries to get out of the trap by leaking he is thinking about firing Sessions, Lispin Lindsey goes on television
to say that will not be allowed too happen. If he fires Sessions, Congress would not approve ANY of Trump's picks for DOJ-leaving
Rosenstein in charge anyway.
Trump was pissed because they removed his only defender from Mueller -- the head of the DOJ. He knew
it was a setup, so went ballistic when he found out about Sessions recusing.
There is good reason for optimism: Trumpus Maximus is on the case.
I remain intensely skeptical that this will happen. However the fact that some members of Congress such as Congressman Nunes
(recently cleared of charges that he acted inappropriately by disclosing details of the surveillance back in March) and Congressman
Jordan are starting to demand it is a hopeful sign.
The design has been exposed. It is now fairly clear WHAT the conspirators did.
We now enter the neutralization and mop-up phase.
And, very likely, people who know things will be EAGER to talk:
FBI agents, like anyone else, are human beings. We are allowed to have our political beliefs. If anything, the overwhelming
majority of agents are conservative Republicans.
Bloomberg fed a fake leak that Mueller had subpoenaed records from Deutsche Bank. Democrats (Schiff) on the House Intelligence Committee fed fake information about Don Jr. that was leaked to CNN. Leading to
an embarrassing retraction. ABC's Brian Ross fed a fake leak about the Flynn indictment. Leading to an embarrassing retraction.
Maybe the operation that Sessions set up some time ago to catch leakers is bearing fruit after all. And Mueller should realize
that the ice is breaking up all around him.
once this special prosecutor is done, congress needs to rewrite the special prosecutor law to narrow their mandate to just
the item allowed to be investigated - no fishing expeditions - enough of this stupidity - and maybe put a renewal clause in there
so that it has to be renewed every 12 months...
This is, and always has been a sideshow for the "true believers" in the Democrap party and all Hitlary supporters to accuse
Trump of EXACTLY what Hitlary did, in the classic method of diversion. Sideshow magicians have been doing it for millenia--"Look
over there" while the real work is done elsewhere. The true believers don't want to believe that Hitlary and the Democrap party
are complicit in the selling of Uranium One to the Ruskies for $145 million. No, no, that was something completely different and
Hitlary is not guilty of selling out the interests of the US for money. Nope, Trump colluded with the Russians to win the election.
Yep, that's it.
Mueller is now the official head of a shit show that's coming apart at the seams. He was too stupid to even bring on ANY non-Hitlary
supporting leftists which could have given him a smidgen of equibility, instead he stacked the deck with sycophant libtard leftists
who by their very nature take away ANY concept of impartiality, and any jury on the planet would see through the connivance like
glass. My guess is he's far too stupid to stop, and I happily await the carnage of his actions as they decimate the Democrap party.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to £1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
And I feel like the Democrats get so distracted. They have been talking about sexual
harassment and stuff instead of the TAX BILL. It is so damn easy to get them to take their
eyes off the ball! and get played again and again. . . and TRAGIC given the consequences . .
.
It's the perfect "distraction". Allows them to engage in virtue-signaling and "fighting
for average Americans". It's all phony, they always "lose" in the end getting exactly what
they wanted in the first place, while not actually having to cast a vote for it.
It's all related, less safety net and more inequality means more desperation to take a
job, *ANY* job, means more women putting up with sexual harassment (and workplace bullying
and horrible and illegal workplace conditions etc.) as the price of a paycheck.
Horrible Toomey's re-election was a parallel to the Clinton/Trump fiasco. The Democrats
put up a corporate shill, Katie McGinty that no-one trusted.
"Former lobbyist Katie McGinty has spent three decades in politics getting rich off the
companies she regulated and subsidized. Now this master of the revolving-door wants
Pennsylvania voters to give her another perch in government: U.S. Senator." Washington
Examiner.
She was a Clintonite through and through, that everyone, much like $Hillary, could see
through.
To paraphrase the Beatles, you say you want a revolution but you don't really mean it. You
want more of the same because it makes you feel good to keep voting for your Senator or your
Congressman. The others are corrupt and evil, but your guys are good. If only the others were
like your guys. News flash: they are all your guys.
America is doomed. And so much the better. Despite all America has done for the world, it
has also been a brutal despot. America created consumerism, super-sizing and the Kardashians.
These are all unforgivable sins. America is probably the most persistently violent country in
the world both domestically and internationally. No other country has invaded or occupied so
much of the world, unless you count the known world in which case Macedonia wins.
This tax plan is what Americans want because they are pretty ignorant and stupid. They are
incapable of understanding basic math so they can't work out the details. They believe that
any tax cut is inherently good and all government is bad so that is also all that matters.
They honestly think they or their kids will one day be rich so they don't want to hurt rich
people. They also believe that millionaires got their money honestly and through hard work
because that is what they learned from their parents.
Just send a blank check to Goldman Sachs. Keep a bit to buy a gun which you can use to
either shoot up a McDonalds or blow your own brains out.
And some people still ask me why I left and don't want to come back. LOL
Macedonia of today is not the same are that conquered the world. They stole the name from
Greeks.
That being said, the US is ripe for a change. Every policy the current rulers enact seems
to make things better. However, I suspect a revolution would kill majority of the population
since it would disrupt the all important supply chains, so it does not seem viable.
However, a military takeover could be viable. If they are willing to wipe out the most
predatory portions of the ruling class, they could fix the healthcare system, install a
high-employment policy and take out the banks and even the military contractors. Which could
make them very popular.
Yeah, right. Have you seen our generals? They're just more of the same leeches we
have everywhere else in the 0.01%. Have you seen any of the other military dictatorships
around the world, like actually existing ones? They're all brilliantly corrupt and total
failures when it comes to running any sort of economy. Not to mention the total loss of civil
rights. Americans have this idiotic love of their military thanks to decades of effective
propaganda and think the rule of pampered generals would somehow be better than the right to
vote. Bleh.
This is a military dictatorship. The fourth and sixth amendments have been de facto
repealed. Trump cared about one thing and one thing only, namely to repeal the estate tax. He
is the ultimate con man and this was his biggest con. It is truly amazing how he accomplished
this. He has saved his family a billion $$$. He will now turn over governing to the generals
and Goldman Sachs. He may even retire. Truly amazing. One has to admire the sheer perversity
of it all. When will the American electorate get tired of being conned? The fact is they have
nothing but admiration for Trump. We live in a criminal culture, winner take all. America
loves its winners.
There is an old 2003 David Brooks column in which he mentions that
"The Democrats couldn't even persuade people to oppose the repeal of the estate tax, which
is explicitly for the mega-upper class. Al Gore, who ran a populist campaign, couldn't even
win the votes of white males who didn't go to college, whose incomes have stagnated over the
past decades and who were the explicit targets of his campaign. Why don't more Americans want
to distribute more wealth down to people like themselves?"
Then Brooks goes on to explain
"The most telling polling result from the 2000 election was from a Time magazine survey
that asked people if they are in the top 1 percent of earners. Nineteen percent of Americans
say they are in the richest 1 percent and a further 20 percent expect to be someday. So right
away you have 39 percent of Americans who thought that when Mr. Gore savaged a plan that
favored the top 1 percent, he was taking a direct shot at them."
The Republicans have conditioned people to believe government services (except for
defense/military) are run poorly and need to be "run like a business" for a profit.
The problem is that not all government services CAN be profitable (homeless care, mental
health care for the poor, EPA enforcement, OSHA enforcement). And when attempts are made to
privatize some government operations such as incarceration, the result is that the private
company tries to maximize profits by pushing for laws to incarcerate ever more people.
The history of the USA as viewed by outsiders, maybe 50 years hence, will be that of a
resource consuming nation that spent a vast fortune on military hardware and military
adventures when it had little to fear due to geography, a nation that touted an independent
press that was anything but, a nation that created a large media/entertainment industry which
helped to keep citizens in line, a nation that fostered an overly large (by 2 or 3 times per
Paul Whooley) parasitical financial industry that did not perform its prime capital
allocation task competently as it veered from bubble to bubble and a nation that managed to
spend great sums on medical care without covering all citizens.
But the USA does have a lot of guns and a lot of frustrated people.
Maybe Kevlar vests will be the fashion of the future?
The provision to do away with the estate tax, if not immediately, in the current versions
(House and Senate) is great news for the 1%, and bad for the rest of us.
And if more people are not against that (thanks for quoting the NYTImes article), it's the
failure of the rest of the media for not focusing more on it, but wasting time and energy on
fashion, sports, entertainment, etc.
he provision to do away with the estate tax . . . is great news for the 1%
I think it's even a little more extreme than that. The data is a few years old, but it is
only the top 0.6% who are affected by estate taxes in the United States. See the data at
these web sites:
The military adventures were largely in support of what Smedley Butler so accurately
called the Great "Racket" of Monroe Doctrine colonialism and rapacious extractive
"capitalism" aka "looting."
It took longer and costed the rich a bit more to buy up all the bits of government, but
the way they've done will likely be more compendious and lasting. Barring some "intervening
event(s)".
While Republicans show their true colors, im out there seeing a resurgence of civil
society. And im starting to reach Hard core Tea Party types. Jobs, Manufacturing, Actual
Policy.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Español's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II." ..."
"... Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'" ..."
Review " A powerful contradiction to the present US narrative of the world . . .
As shown here, fake news is thriving in Washington, DC."-- Oliver Stone , Academy Award winning
director and screenwriter
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia is a beautifully written, uncommonly coherent,
and very compelling treatise on the issues facing America today... a troubling indictment of
where we've been and where we're headed. Moreover, this book is profoundly important , and
a timely retrospective review of American foreign policy misadventures since the advent of the Cold
War." -- Phillip F. Nelson , author of LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination and
LBJ: From Mastermind to "The Colossus"
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia underscores how the CIA's infiltration and shaping
of the media, which began in the 1950s, successfully continues today. A very worthwhile account
for anyone who wants to understand how 'reality' is manufactured, while 'real truth' is murdered
and buried." -- Peter Janney , author of Mary's Mosaic: The CIA Conspiracy to Murder John
F. Kennedy, Mary Pinchot Meyer, and Their Vision for World Peace
"At a time when the U.S. military budget is again soaring to enrich the oligarchs, this timely
and thought-provoking book turns Orwellian 'double-think' on its head in a cogent analysis of
what's really behind all the saber-rattling against Russia. In a scholarly but also deeply personal
and fluidly written work , Dan Kovalik pulls no punches in dissecting the history of how America
has justified its own imperialistic aims through the Cold War era and right up to the current anti-Putin
hysteria." -- Dick Russell , New York Times bestselling author of Horsemen of the
Apocalypse: The Men Who Are Destroying Life on Earth and What It Means to Our Children
" The Plot to Scapegoat Russia confronts the timeliest of subjects, the effort to
resuscitate the Cold War by blaming Russian president Vladimir Putin for interfering in the 2016
presidential campaign on behalf of Donald Trump, an effort pursued by CIA and the Democratic Party
working in tandem. Kovalik establishes... that not a scintilla of evidence has emerged to grant credibility
to this self-serving fantasy... [and he] deftly eviscerates the mainstream press . Reading
[this book] will be salutary, illuminating and more than instructive ." -- Joan Mellen
, author of Faustian Bargains: Lyndon Johnson and Mac Wallace in the Robber Baron Culture
of Texas
Beating up on Russia; history tells why
By William T. Whitney Jr. .
Lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik has written a valuable book. He looked at a recent
U. S. political development in terms of history and then skewered it. His new book, "The Plot
to Scapegoat Russia," looks at mounting assaults against Russia that increased during the Obama
administration and that spokespersons for the Democratic Party, among others, are promoting.
The CIA, he claims, without going into specifics, is engaged in anti-Russian activities. For
Kovalik, "the CIA is a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the American public
and government into wars and misadventures."
Kovalik devotes much of his book to what he regards as precedents for the current dark turn
in U.S. – Russian relations. Toward that end, he surveys the history of U.S. foreign interventions
since World War II. He confirms that the United States government is indeed habituated to aggressive
adventurism abroad. That's something many readers already know, but Kovalik contributes significantly
by establishing that U.S. hostility against Russia ranks as a chapter in that long story.
But what's the motivation for military assaults and destabilizing projects? And, generally,
why all the wars? The author's historical survey provides answers. He finds that the scenarios
he describes are connected. Treating them as a whole, he gives them weight and thus provides an
intellectual weapon for the anti-imperialist cause. Kovalik, putting history to work, moves from
the issue of U.S.-Russian antagonism to the more over-arching problem of threats to human survival.
That's his major contribution.
His highly-recommended book offers facts and analyses so encompassing as to belie its small
size. The writing is clear, evocative, and eminently readable; his narrative is that of a story
– teller. Along the way, as a side benefit, Kovalik recalls the causes and outrage that fired
up activists who were his contemporaries.
He testifies to a new Cold War. Doing so, he argues that the anti-communist rational for the
earlier Cold War was a cover for something else, a pretext. In his words: "the Cold War, at least
from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting 'Communism,' and more to do with
making the world safe for corporate plunder." Once more Russia is an enemy of the United States,
but now it's a capitalist country.
That's mysterious; explanation is in order. Readers, however, may be hungry to know about the
"plot" advertised in the book's title. We recommend patience. History and its recurring patterns
come first for this author. They enable him to account for U. S. – Russian relations that are
contradictory and, most importantly, for the U.S. propensity for war-making. After that he tells
about a plot.
Kovalik describes how, very early, reports of CIA machinations from former agents of the spy
organization expanded his political awareness, as did a trip to Nicaragua. There he gained first-hand
knowledge of CIA atrocities, of deaths and destruction at the hands of the Contras, anti- Sandinista
paramilitaries backed by the CIA His book goes on fully and dramatically to describe murders
and chaos orchestrated by the United States and/or the CIA in El Salvador, Colombia, and in the
South America of Operation Condor. Kovalic discusses the U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war
in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and
the CIA's recruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahedeen in Afghan¬istan. He recounts U. S. - instigated
coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973.
These projects were about keeping "the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism"
– in other words, anti-communism. But then the USSR disappeared, and the search was on for a new
pretext. The Clinton administration evoked "humanitarian intervention," and continued the intrusions:
in Ruanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo (on behalf of "US mining interests"), Yugoslavia,
and Libya.
In Kovalik's telling, the U. S. government eventually settled upon the notion of "American
exceptionalism," that is to say, "the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world,
spreading peace and democracy." Thus armed, the U. S. military exported terror to Afghanistan,
Iraq, Somalia, Yemen (via its Saudi Arabian proxy), and Honduras, through a U. S. facilitated
military coup. The book catalogues other episodes, other places. Along the way on his excursion,
Kovalik contrasts U. S. pretensions and brutal deeds with the relatively benign nature of alleged
Russian outrages.
Good relations with Russia, he says, would be "simply bad for business, in particular the business
of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military
bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined."
And, "under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries." Further,
"The US's outsized military exists not only to ensure the US's quite unjust share of the world's
riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this
country."
Kovalik highlights the disaster that overwhelmed Russia as a fledgling capitalist nation: life
expectancy plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments fell by 80 percent. National
pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State
Baker's 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia's
ally Serbia, and after the United States, rejecting Russian priorities, attacked Iraq in 2003
and Libya in 2011.
The author rebuts U. S. claims that Russian democracy has failed and that Putin over-reached
in Ukraine. He praises Putin's attempts to cooperate with the United States in Syria. The United
States has abused peoples the world over, he insists, and suffers from a "severe democracy deficit."
By the time he is discussing current U. S. – Russian relations, readers have been primed never
to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break. The author's instructional course has taken
effect, or should have done so. If readers aren't aware of what the U. S. government has been
up to, the author is not to blame.
Kovalik condemns the Obama administration and particularly Secretary of State Hilary Clinton
for intensifying the U. S. campaign against Russia. He extends his criticism to the Democratic
Party and the media. The theme of anti – Russian scheming by the CIA comes up briefly in the book
in connection with hacking attributed to Russia and with WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic
Party. Nothing is said about possible interaction between personnel of the Trump campaign and
Russian officials.
Kovalik's historical excursion takes in the Soviet Union. Clearly, many of the U. S. military
interventions described in this valuable book wouldn't have occurred if the Soviet Union still
existed. Beyond that, Kovalik says, "the Soviet Union, did wield sizable political and ideological
influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its
critical role in winning [World War] II."
Kovalik acknowledges "periods of great repression." He adds, however, that "the Russian Revolution
and the USSR delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. . In any case, the goals
of the Russian Revolution-equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social
security- were laudable ones." And, "One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the
grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements,
is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work¬ing people
around the world deepens, they don't get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist
revolution with such ideals."
Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that, 'The US is on the wrong
side of the world-wide revolution' – and with Daniel Ellsberg's clarification: 'The US is not
on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.'"
The most important non-fiction work thus far of 2017 is upon us. Finally the book has arrived
that cuts through all the hype, deceit, misinformation and disconcerting groupthink.
Kovalik structures TPTSR by starting at the most logical place -- the history of unilateral
Washington aggression across the globe, from the overthrow of Mossadegh in Iran through the Washington
intell agencies' orchestrated coups and proxy wars in Latin America.
This exposition of historical Washington empire building provides a solid foundation when he
ultimately addresses why the predatory military-industrial-media-complex is incessantly fomenting
this dangerous contemporary Russophobic campaign. The book nails it by presenting in a crystal
clear manner the two exact reasons why the demonization of Moscow never seems to subside: 1.)
The corporate and Washington military empire builders are deeply threatened by the potential loss
of certain markets and a sovereign Russia that desires a say over the diplomatic and military
maneuvers on its borders, especially its Western region. 2.) Most importantly, the MIC/national-security
state absolutely MUST HAVE a villain (real or imagined, it doesn't matter) in order to justify
the trillion dollar budget and careerism that seeps into every pore of the U.S. politico-economic
system. This Pentagon system of pseudo economic Keynesianism could potentially lead to nuclear
war. The giant house of cards could doom us all.
This book is an amazing contribution. A veritable primer on U.S. foreign policy, this book
is part memoir, part history, and part analysis of current events. Kovalik makes a compelling
case that U.S. policies--not Russia--are the biggest danger to world peace and human rights. The
book traces Kovalik's own awakening and transformation from his conservative religious-minded
youth to one of our most trenchant critics of U.S. foreign policy writing today. And he does it
in his own inimitable, witty, readable, and humane style.
"... Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook. ..."
"... No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that. ..."
"... a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without ..."
"... Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'. ..."
"... A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and independence movements. ..."
"... "Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s), that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run brainwashing factories. ..."
Well all right, let's review what happened, or at least the official version of what
happened. Not Hillary Clinton's version of what happened, which Jeffrey St. Clair so
incisively skewered , but the Corporatocracy's version of what happened, which overlaps
with but is even more ridiculous than Clinton's ridiculous version. To do that, we need to
harken back to the peaceful Summer of 2016, (a/k/a the
"Summer of Fear" ), when the United States of America was still a shiny city upon a hill
whose beacon light guided freedom-loving people, the Nazis were still just a bunch of ass
clowns meeting in each other's mother's garages, and Russia was, well Russia was Russia.
Back then, as I'm sure you'll recall, Western democracy, was still primarily being menaced
by the lone
wolf terrorists, for absolutely no conceivable reason, apart from the terrorists' fanatical
desire to brutally murder all non-believers. The global Russo-Nazi Axis had not yet reared its
ugly head. President Obama, who, during his tenure, had single-handedly restored America to the
peaceful, prosperous, progressive paradise it had been before George W. Bush screwed it up, was
on The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon slow
jamming home the TPP . The Wall Street banks had risen from the ashes of the 2008 financial
crisis, and were buying back all the foreclosed homes of the people they had fleeced with
subprime mortgages. American workers were enjoying the freedom and flexibility of the new gig
economy. Electioneering in the United States was underway, but it was early days. It was
already clear that Donald Trump was literally
the Second Coming of Hitler , but no one was terribly worried about him yet. The Republican
Party was in a shambles. Neither Trump nor any of the other contenders had any chance of
winning in November. Nor did Sanders, who had been defeated, fair and square, in the Democratic
primaries, mostly because of
his racist statements and crazy, quasi-Communist ideas. Basically, everything was hunky
dory. Yes, it was going to be terribly sad to have to bid farewell to Obama, who had bailed out
all those bankrupt Americans the Wall Street banks had taken to the cleaners, ended all of Bush
and Cheney's wars, closed down Guantanamo, and just generally served as a multicultural messiah
figure to affluent consumers throughout the free world, but Hope-and-Change was going to
continue. The talking heads were all in agreement Hillary Clinton was going to be President,
and there was nothing anyone could do about it.
Little did we know at the time that an epidemic of Russo-Nazism had been festering just
beneath the surface of freedom-loving Western societies like some neo-fascist sebaceous cyst.
Apparently, millions of theretofore more or less normal citizens throughout the West had been
infected with a virulent strain of Russo-Nazi-engineered virus, because they simultaneously
began exhibiting the hallmark symptoms of what we now know as White Supremacist Behavioral
Disorder, or Fascist Oppositional Disorder (the folks who update the DSM are still arguing over
the official name). It started with the Brexit referendum, spread to America with the election
of Trump, and there have been a rash of outbreaks in Europe, like
the one we're currently experiencing in Germany . These fascistic symptoms have mostly
manifest as people refusing to vote as instructed, and expressing oppressive views on the
Internet, but there have also been more serious crimes, including several assaults and murders
perpetrated by white supremacists (which, of course, never happened when Obama was President,
because the Nazis hadn't been "emboldened" yet).
Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything, or
the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and replaced
with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which is merely a
simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because exchange value is
its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their eviscerated cultural
values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer brands as they hunch
together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on Facebook.
No, this discontent with the political establishment, corporate elites, and the
mainstream media has nothing to do with any of that. It's not like global Capitalism, following
the collapse of the U.S.S.R. (its last external ideological adversary), has been restructuring
the entire planet in accordance with its geopolitical interests, or doing away with national
sovereignty, and other nationalistic concepts that no longer serve a useful purpose in a world
where a single ideological system (one backed by the most fearsome military in history) reigns
completely unopposed. If that were the case, well, it might behoove us to question whether this
outbreak of Nazism, racism, and other forms of "hate," was somehow connected to that historical
development and maybe even try to articulate some sort of leftist analysis of that.
This hypothetical leftist analysis might want to focus on how Capitalism is fundamentally
opposed to Despotism, and is essentially a value-decoding machine which renders everything and
everyone it touches essentially valueless interchangeable commodities whose worth is determined
by market forces, rather than by societies and cultures, or religions, or other despotic
systems (wherein values are established and enforced arbitrarily, by the despot, the church, or
the ruling party, or by a group of people who share an affinity and decide they want to live a
certain way). This is where it would get sort of tricky, because it (i.e., this hypothetical
analysis) would have to delve into the history of Capitalism, and how it evolved out of
medieval Despotism, and how it has been decoding despotic values for something like five
hundred years. This historical delving (which would probably be too long for people to read on
their phones) would demonstrate how Capitalism has been an essentially progressive force in
terms of getting us out of Despotism (which, for most folks, wasn't very much fun) by fomenting
bourgeois revolutions and imposing some semblance of democracy on societies. It would follow
Capitalism's inexorable advance all the way up to the Twentieth Century, in which its final
external ideological adversary, fake Communism, suddenly imploded, delivering us to the world
we now live in a world where a single ideology rules the planet unopposed from without
, and where any opposition to that global ideology can only be internal, or insurgent, in
nature (e.g, terrorism, extremism, and so on). Being a hypothetical leftist analysis,
it would, at this point, need to stress that, despite the fact that Capitalism helped deliver
us from Despotism, and improved the state of society generally (compared to most societies that
preceded it), we nonetheless would like to transcend it, or evolve out of it toward some type
of society where people, and everything else, including the biosphere we live in, are not
interchangeable, valueless commodities exchanged by members of a global corporatocracy who have
no essential values, or beliefs, or principles, other than the worship of money. After having
covered all that, we might want to offer more a nuanced view of the current neo-nationalist
reaction to the Corporatocracy's ongoing efforts to restructure and privatize the rest of the
planet. Not that we would support this reaction, or in any way refrain from calling
neo-nationalism what it is (i.e., reactionary, despotic, and doomed), but this nuanced view
we'd hypothetically offer, by analyzing the larger sociopolitical and historical forces at
play, might help us to see the way forward more clearly, and who knows, maybe eventually
propose some kind of credible leftist alternative to the "global neoliberalism vs.
neo-nationalism" double bind we appear to be hopelessly stuck in at the moment.
Luckily, we don't have to do that (i.e., articulate such a leftist analysis of any such
larger historical forces). Because there is no corporatocracy not really. That's just a fake
word the Russians made up and are spreading around on the Internet to distract us while the
Nazis take over. No, the logical explanation for Trump, Brexit, and anything else that
threatens the expansion of global Capitalism, and the freedom, democracy, and prosperity it
offers, is that millions of people across the world, all at once, for no apparent reason, woke
up one day full-blown fascists and started looking around for repulsive demagogues to swear
fanatical allegiance to. Yes, that makes a lot more sense than all that complicated stuff about
history and hegemonic ideological systems, which is probably just Russian propaganda anyway, in
which case there is absolutely no reason to read any boring year-old pieces, like this one in TheEuropeanFinancialReview , or this report by
Corporate Watch , from way back in the year 2000, about the rise of global corporate
power.
So, apologies for wasting your time with all that pseudo-Marxian gobbledygook. Let's just
pretend this never happened, and get back to more important matters, like statistically proving
that Donald Trump got elected President because of racism, misogyny, transphobia, xenophobia,
or some other type of behavioral disorder, and pulling down Confederate statues, or kneeling
during the National Anthem, or whatever happens to be trending this week. Oh, yeah, and
debating punching Nazis, or people wearing MAGA hats. We definitely need to sort all that out
before we can move ahead with helping the Corporatocracy remove Trump from office, or at least
ensure he remains surrounded by their loyal generals, CEOs, and Goldman Sachs guys until the
next election. Whatever we do, let's not get distracted by that stuff I just distracted you
with. I know, it's tempting, but, given what's at stake, we need to maintain our laser focus on
issues related to identity politics, or else well, you know, the Nazis win.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
Yesterday evening on RT a USA lady, as usual forgot the name, spoke about the USA. In a
matter of fact tone she said things like 'they (Deep State) have got him (Trump) in the
box'.
They, Deep State again, are now wondering if they will continue to try to control the
world, or if they should stop the attempt, and retreat into the USA.
Also as matter of fact she said 'the CIA has always been the instrument of Deep State, from
Kenndy to Nine Eleven'.
Another statement was 'no president ever was in control'.
How USA citizens continue to believe they live in a democracy, I cannot understand.
Yesterday the intentions of the new Dutch government were made public, alas most Dutch
also dot not see that the Netherlands since 2005 no longer is a democracy, just a province of
Brussels.
Brexit is about Britons who want their country back, a movement indeed getting
stronger and stronger in EU member states, but ignored by the ruling 'elites'.
No doubt many do want their country back, but what concerns me is that all of a sudden we
have the concept of "independence" plastered all over the place. Such concepts don't get
promoted unless the ruling elites see ways to turn those sentiments to their favor.
A lot of these so called "revolutions" are fomented by the elite only to be subverted
and perverted by them in the end. They've had a lot of practice co-opting revolutions and
independence movements. (And everything else.)
"Independence" is now so fashionable (as was Communism among the "elite" back in the '30s),
that they are even teaching and fostering independence to kids in kindergarten here in the
US. That strikes me as most amusing. Imagine "learning" independence in state run
brainwashing factories.
"Now, despite what the Russian propagandists will tell you, this recent outbreak of
fascistic behavior has nothing whatsoever to do with these people's frustration with
neoliberalism or the supranational Corporatocracy that has been expanding its global empire
with total impunity for twenty-five years. And it definitely has nothing at all to do with
supranational political unions, or the supersession of national sovereignty by
corporate-concocted "free trade" agreements, or the relentless privatization of everything,
or the fear that a lot of people have that their cultures are being gradually erased and
replaced with a globalized, corporate-friendly, multicultural, market-based culture, which
is merely a simulation of culture, and which contains no actual cultural values (because
exchange value is its only operative value), but which sells the empty signifiers of their
eviscerated cultural values back to them so they can wear their "identities" like designer
brands as they hunch together in silence at Starbucks posting pictures of themselves on
Facebook."
Very impressed with this article, never really paid attention to CJ's articles but that is
now changing!
Chris Hedges, who is doubtless a courageous journalist and an intelligent commentator, suggests
that if we are to discuss the anti-Russia campaign realistically, as baseless in fact, and as
contrived for an effect and to further/protect some particular interests, we can hardly avoid the
question: Who or what interest is served by the anti-Russia campaign?
An interesting observation "The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political
party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid
for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of
the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out."
The other relevant observation is that there is no American left. It was destroyed as a
political movement. The USA is a right wing country.
Notable quotes:
"... This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of color. ..."
"... It is the result of the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation, a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations. It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they have done to the country. ..."
"... The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our economy and our democratic institutions. ..."
"... Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. ..."
"... The Democratic Party doesn't actually function as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile political theater. ..."
"... These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes. ..."
"... The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and one the paper has never faced. ..."
"... The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself as the "left." ..."
"... Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left -- not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories, that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease. ..."
"... For good measure, they purged the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France. There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon. But here we almost have to begin from scratch. ..."
"... The corporate elites we have to overthrow already hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down. ..."
"... The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique. You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You won't get grants. ..."
"... The elite schools, and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison! ..."
"... Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual, cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these people: traitors. ..."
But the whole idea that the Russians swung the election to Trump is absurd. It's really premised
on the unproven claim that Russia gave the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks, and the release of these
emails turned tens, or hundreds of thousands, of Clinton supporters towards Trump. This doesn't make
any sense. Either that, or, according to the director of national intelligence, RT America, where
I have a show, got everyone to vote for the Green Party.
This obsession with Russia is a tactic used by the ruling elite, and in particular the Democratic
Party, to avoid facing a very unpleasant reality: that their unpopularity is the outcome of their
policies of deindustrialization and the assault against working men and women and poor people of
color. It is the result of disastrous trade agreements like NAFTA that abolished good-paying union
jobs and shipped them to places like Mexico, where workers without benefits are paid $3.00 an hour.
It is the result of the explosion of a system of mass incarceration, begun by Bill Clinton with the
1994 omnibus crime bill, and the tripling and quadrupling of prison sentences. It is the result of
the slashing of basic government services, including, of course, welfare, that Clinton gutted; deregulation,
a decaying infrastructure, including public schools, and the de facto tax boycott by corporations.
It is the result of the transformation of the country into an oligarchy. The nativist revolt on the
right, and the aborted insurgency within the Democratic Party, makes sense when you see what they
have done to the country.
Police forces have been turned into quasi-military entities that terrorize marginal communities,
where people have been stripped of all of their rights and can be shot with impunity; in fact over
three are killed a day. The state shoots and locks up poor people of color as a form of social control.
They are quite willing to employ the same form of social control on any other segment of the population
that becomes restive.
The Democratic Party, in particular, is driving this whole Russia witch-hunt. It cannot face
its complicity in the destruction of our civil liberties -- and remember, Barack Obama's assault
on civil liberties was worse than those carried out by George W. Bush -- and the destruction of our
economy and our democratic institutions.
Politicians like the Clintons, Pelosi and Schumer are creations of Wall Street. That is why
they are so virulent about pushing back against the Sanders wing of the Democratic Party. Without
Wall Street money, they would not hold political power. The Democratic Party doesn't actually function
as a political party. It's about perpetual mass mobilization and a hyperventilating public relations
arm, all paid for by corporate donors. The base of the party has no real say in the leadership or
the policies of the party, as Bernie Sanders and his followers found out. They are props in the sterile
political theater.
These party elites, consumed by greed, myopia and a deep cynicism, have a death grip on the political
process. They're not going to let it go, even if it all implodes.
... ... ...
DN: Let's come back to this question of the Russian hacking news story. You raised the ability
to generate a story, which has absolutely no factual foundation, nothing but assertions by various
intelligence agencies, presented as an assessment that is beyond question. What is your evaluation
of this?
CH: The commercial broadcast networks, and that includes CNN and MSNBC, are not in the business
of journalism. They hardly do any. Their celebrity correspondents are courtiers to the elite. They
speculate about and amplify court gossip, which is all the accusations about Russia, and they repeat
what they are told to repeat. They sacrifice journalism and truth for ratings and profit. These cable
news shows are one of many revenue streams in a corporate structure. They compete against other revenue
streams. The head of CNN, Jeff Zucker, who helped create the fictional persona of Donald Trump on
"Celebrity Apprentice," has turned politics on CNN into a 24-hour reality show. All nuance, ambiguity,
meaning and depth, along with verifiable fact, are sacrificed for salacious entertainment. Lying,
racism, bigotry and conspiracy theories are given platforms and considered newsworthy, often espoused
by people whose sole quality is that they are unhinged. It is news as burlesque.
I was on the investigative team at the New York Times during the lead-up to the Iraq
War. I was based in Paris and covered Al Qaeda in Europe and the Middle East. Lewis Scooter Libby,
Dick Cheney, Richard Perle and maybe somebody in an intelligence agency, would confirm whatever story
the administration was attempting to pitch. Journalistic rules at the Times say you can't
go with a one-source story. But if you have three or four supposedly independent sources confirming
the same narrative, then you can go with it, which is how they did it. The paper did not break any
rules taught at Columbia journalism school, but everything they wrote was a lie.
The whole exercise was farcical. The White House would leak some bogus story to Judy Miller or
Michael Gordon, and then go on the talk shows to say, 'as the Times reported .' It gave these lies
the veneer of independence and reputable journalism. This was a massive institutional failing, and
one the paper has never faced.
DN: The CIA pitches the story, and then the Times gets the verification from those who
pitch it to them.
CH: It's not always pitched. And not much of this came from the CIA The CIA wasn't buying the
"weapons of mass destruction" hysteria.
DN: It goes the other way too?
CH: Sure. Because if you're trying to have access to a senior official, you'll constantly be putting
in requests, and those officials will decide when they want to see you. And when they want to see
you, it's usually because they have something to sell you.
DN: The media's anti-Russia narrative has been embraced by large portions of what presents itself
as the "left."
CH: Well, don't get me started on the American left. First of all, there is no American left --
not a left that has any kind of seriousness, that understands political or revolutionary theories,
that's steeped in economic study, that understands how systems of power work, especially corporate
and imperial power. The left is caught up in the same kind of cults of personality that plague the
rest of society. It focuses on Trump, as if Trump is the central problem. Trump is a product, a symptom
of a failed system and dysfunctional democracy, not the disease.
If you attempt to debate most of those on the supposedly left, they reduce discussion to this
cartoonish vision of politics.
The serious left in this country was decimated. It started with the suppression of radical movements
under Woodrow Wilson, then the "Red Scares" in the 1920s, when they virtually destroyed our labor
movement and our radical press, and then all of the purges in the 1950s. For good measure, they purged
the liberal class -- look at what they did to Henry Wallace -- so that Cold War "liberals" equated
capitalism with democracy, and imperialism with freedom and liberty. I lived in Switzerland and France.
There are still residues of a militant left in Europe, which gives Europeans something to build upon.
But here we almost have to begin from scratch.
I've battled continuously with Antifa and the Black Bloc. I think they're kind of poster children
for what I would consider phenomenal political immaturity. Resistance is not a form of personal catharsis.
We are not fighting the rise of fascism in the 1930s. The corporate elites we have to overthrow already
hold power. And unless we build a broad, popular resistance movement, which takes a lot of patient
organizing among working men and women, we are going to be steadily ground down.
So Trump's not the problem. But just that sentence alone is going to kill most discussions with
people who consider themselves part of the left.
The corporate state has made it very hard to make a living if you hold fast to this radical critique.
You will never get tenure. You probably won't get academic appointments. You won't win prizes. You
won't get grants. The New York Times , if they review your book, will turn it over to a
dutiful mandarin like George Packer to trash it -- as he did with my last book. The elite schools,
and I have taught as a visiting professor at a few of them, such as Princeton and Columbia, replicate
the structure and goals of corporations. If you want to even get through a doctoral committee, much
less a tenure committee, you must play it really, really safe. You must not challenge the corporate-friendly
stance that permeates the institution and is imposed through corporate donations and the dictates
of wealthy alumni. Half of the members of most of these trustee boards should be in prison!
Speculation in the 17th century in Britain was a crime. Speculators were hanged. And today they
run the economy and the country. They have used the capturing of wealth to destroy the intellectual,
cultural and artistic life in the country and snuff out our democracy. There is a word for these
people: traitors.
US Congress allowed to drag itself into this propaganda swamp by politized Intelligence community, which became a major political
player, that can dictate Congress what to do and what not to do. Now it is not that easy to get out of this "intelligence swamp"
Notable quotes:
"... The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from. ..."
"... This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts ..."
"... iven the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee does not engender confidence. ..."
"... It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy and ultimate victory. ..."
"... One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard. ..."
"... purchase of advertisements on various social media platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, by the Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level." ..."
"... No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter, a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs. ..."
"... the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy. ..."
"... There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri) or immigration ("The Wall"). ..."
"... These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it. ..."
The 'briefing' is just another exercise in preferred narrative boosting.
The co-chairmen of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence held a press briefing Thursday on the status of their ongoing investigation
into Russian meddling in the American electoral process. Content-wise, the press briefing and the question and answer session were
an exercise in information futility -- they provided little substance and nothing new. The investigation was still ongoing, the senators
explained, and there was still work to be done.
Nine months into the Committee's work, the best Sens. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.), could offer was that there
was "general consensus" among committee members and their staff that they trust the findings of the Intelligence Community Assessment
(ICA) of January 2017, which gave high confidence to the charge that Russia meddled in the 2016 presidential election. The issue
of possible collusion between Russia and members of the campaign of Donald Trump, however, "is still open."
Frankly speaking, this isn't good enough.
The 2017 ICA on Russia was conceived in an atmosphere of despair and denial, birthed by Democrats and Republicans alike who
were stunned by Trump's surprise electoral victory in November 2016. To say that this issue was a political event would be a gross
understatement; the 2017 Russian ICA will go down in history as one of the most politicized intelligence documents ever, regardless
of the degree of accuracy eventually afforded its contents. The very fact that the document is given the sobriquet "Intelligence
Community" is itself a political act, designed to impart a degree of scrutiny and community consensus that simply did not exist when
it came to the production of that document, or the classified reports that it was derived from.
This was a report prepared by handpicked analysts from three of the Intelligence Community's sixteen agencies (the
CIA, NSA, and FBI) who operated outside of the National Intelligence Council (the venue for the production of Intelligence Community
products such as the Russian ICA), and void of the direction and supervision of a dedicated National Intelligence Officer. Overcoming
this deficient family tree represents a high hurdle, even before the issue of the credibility of the sources and methods used to
underpin the ICA's findings are discussed. Given the firestorm of political intrigue and controversy initiated by the publication
of this document, the notion of a "general consensus" regarding the level of trust imparted to it by the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee does not engender confidence.
It was this document that spawned the issue of "collusion." While Sens. Burr and Warner can state that "collusion" is still
an open issue, the fact of the matter is that, in this regard, Trump and his campaign advisors have already been found guilty in
the court of public opinion, especially among those members of the public and the media who were vehemently opposed to his candidacy
and ultimate victory. Insofar as the committee's investigation serves as a legitimate search for truth, it does so as a post-conviction
appeal. However, as the distinguished Supreme Court Justice Joseph McKenna noted in his opinion in Berger v. United States
(1921):
The remedy by appeal is inadequate. It comes after the trial, and, if prejudice exist, it has worked its evil and a judgment
of it in a reviewing tribunal is precarious. It goes there fortified by presumptions, and nothing can be more elusive of estimate
or decision than a disposition of a mind in which there is a personal ingredient.
One need only review the comments of the various Democratic members of the Senate Select Committee, their counterparts serving
on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the various experts and pundits in the media, to underscore the
degree to which prejudice has "worked its evil" when it comes to the issue of collusion and the Trump campaign in this regard.
The two senators proceeded to touch on a new angle recently introduced into their investigation, that of the purchase of advertisements
on various social media platforms, including
Facebook and Twitter, by the
Russians or their proxies. With regard to these advertisements, Senator Burr painted a dire picture. "It seems," he declared, "that
the overall theme of the Russian involvement in the US elections was to create chaos at every level."
No one wants to be told that they have been victims of a con; this is especially true when dealing with the sacred trust imparted
to the American citizenry by the Constitution of the United States regarding the free and fair election of those who will represent
us in higher office. American politics, for better or worse, is about the personal connection a given candidate has with the voter,
a gut feeling that this person shares common values and beliefs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans that participate in national elections is low. Those that do tend to be people who
care enough about one or more issues to actually get out and vote. To categorize these dedicated citizens as brain-dead dupes who
are susceptible to social media-based click advertisements is an insult to American democracy.
There is a world of difference between Russian intelligence services allegedly hacking politically sensitive emails and selectively
releasing them for the sole purpose of undermining a given Presidential candidate's electoral prospects, and mimicking social media-based
advertisements addressing issues that are already at play in an election. The Russians didn't invent the ongoing debate in the United
States over gun control (i.e., the "Second Amendment" issue), race relations (the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri)
or immigration ("The Wall").
These were, and remain, core issues that are at the heart of the American domestic political discourse, regardless of where
one stands. You either know the issues, or you don't; it is an insult to the American voter to suggest that they are so malleable
that $100,000 of targeted social media-based advertisements can swing their vote, even if 10 million of them viewed it.
The take away from the press briefing given by Senator's Burr and Warner was two-fold: One, the Russians meddled, and two, we
don't know if Trump colluded with the Russians. The fact that America is nine months into this investigation with little more to
show now than what could have been said at the start is, in and of itself, an American political tragedy. The Trump administration
has been hobbled by the inertia of this and other investigations derived from the question of Russian meddling. That this process
may yet vindicate President Trump isn't justification for the process itself; in such a case the delay will have hurt more than the
truth. As William Penn, the founder of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, so eloquently noted:
Delays have been more injurious than direct Injustice. They too often starve those they dare not deny. The very Winner is made
a Loser, because he pays twice for his own; like those who purchase Estates Mortgaged before to the full value.
Our law says that to delay Justice is Injustice. Not to have a Right, and not to come of it, differs little. Refuse or Dispatch
is the Duty of a Good Officer.
Senators Burr and Warner, together with their fellow members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their respective
staffs, would do well to heed those words.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control
treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of "Deal
of the Century: How Iran Blocked the West's Road to War" (Clarity Press, 2017).
This is particular dirty campaign to implicate Trump and delegitimize his victory is a part of
color revolution against Trump.
The other noble purpose is to find a scapegoat for the
current problems, especially in Democratic Party, and to preserve Clinton neoliberals rule over
the party for a few more futile years.
Notable quotes:
"... Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of Trump. ..."
"... The mini-ads were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the issue. ..."
"... A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads. Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be automatized. ..."
"... This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates "news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it. ..."
"... We learned after the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of dollars by selling advertisements on their sites: ..."
"... The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he dropped nuggets of journalism advice. ..."
"... After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube. ..."
"... Russian Car Crash Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify divisive political issues across the political spectrum". ..."
"... "Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the oligarchs. This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes). ..."
"... The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation . ..."
"... Great article. I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM business model. Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for. ..."
"... Russia gate, since it is unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites. ..."
"... The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these companies will bleed ad revenues. ..."
Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor of
Trump.
It now turns out that these Facebook ads had nothing to do with the election. The mini-ads
were bought to promote click-bait pages and sites. These pages and sites were created and then
promoted to sell further advertisement. The media though, has still not understood the
issue.
Providing new evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 election, Facebook disclosed on
Wednesday that it had identified more than $100,000 worth of divisive ads on hot-button
issues purchased by a shadowy Russian company linked to the Kremlin.
...
The disclosure adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign,
which American intelligence agencies concluded was designed to damage Hillary Clinton and
boost Donald J. Trump during the election.
Like any Congress investigation the current one concerned with Facebook ads is leaking like
a sieve. What oozes out makes little sense.
If "Russia" aimed to make Congress and U.S. media a laughing stock it surely achieved
that.
Today the NYT says that the ads
were posted "in disguise" by "the Russians" to promote variously themed Facebook pages:
There was "Defend the 2nd," a Facebook page for gun-rights supporters, festooned with
firearms and tough rhetoric. There was a rainbow-hued page for gay rights activists, "LGBT
United." There was even a Facebook group for animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies
that spread across the site with the help of paid ads
No one has explained how these pages are supposed to be connected to a Russian "influence"
campaign. It is unexplained how these are supposed to connected to the 2016 election. That is
simply asserted because Facebook said, for unknown reasons, that these ads may have come from
some Russian agency. How Facebook has determined that is not known.
With each detail that leaks from the "Russian ads" investigation the propaganda framework of
"election manipulation" falls further apart:
Late Monday, Facebook said in a post that about 10 million people had seen the ads in
question. About 44 percent of the ads were seen before the 2016 election and the rest after,
the company said
The original story propagandized that "Russia" intended to influence the election in favor
of Trump. But why then was the majority of the ads in questions run later after November 9? And
how would an animal-lovers page with adorable puppy pictures help to achieve Trumps election
victory?
Roughly 25% of the ads were never shown to anyone. That's because advertising auctions are
designed so that ads reach people based on relevance, and certain ads may not reach anyone as
a result.
...
For 50% of the ads, less than $3 was spent; for 99% of the ads, less than $1,000 was spent.
Of the 3,000 ads Facebook originally claimed were "Russian" only 2,200 were ever viewed.
Most of the advertisements were mini-ads which, for the price of a coffee, promoted private
pages related to hobbies and a wide spectrum of controversial issues. The majority of the ads
ran after the election.
All that "adds to the evidence of the broad scope of the Russian influence campaign ...
designed to damage Hillary Clinton and boost Donald J. Trump during the election"?
No.
But the NYT still finds "experts" who believe in the "Russian influence" nonsense and find
the most stupid reasons to justify their claims:
Clinton Watts, a former F.B.I. agent now at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in
Philadelphia, said Russia had been entrepreneurial in trying to develop diverse channels of
influence. Some, like the dogs page, may have been created without a specific goal and held
in reserve for future use.
Puppy pictures for "future use"? Nonsense. Lunacy! The pages described and the ads leading to them are typical click-bait, not a political
influence op.
The for-profit scheme runs as follows: One builds pages with "hot" stuff that attracts lots of viewers. One creates ad-space on
these pages and fills it with Google ads. One promotes the spiked pages by buying $3 Facebook
mini-ads for them.
A few thousand users will come and look at a page. Some will 'like' the puppy pictures or
the rant against LGBT and further spread the page. Some will click the promoted Google ads.
Money then flows into the pockets of the page creator. One can automatize, rinse and repeat this scheme forever. Each such page is a small effort
for a small revenue. But the scheme is highly scale-able and parts of it can be
automatized.
This is, in essence, the same business model traditional media publishers use. One creates
"news" and controversies to attract readers. The attention of the readers is then sold to
advertisers. The business is no longer a limited to a few rich oligarchic. One no longer needs
reporters or a printing press to join in. Anyone can now take part in it.
We learned after
the election that some youths in Macedonia created whole "news"-websites filled with highly
attractive but fake partisan stories. They were not interested in the veracity or political
direction of their content. Their only interest was to attract viewers. They made thousands of
dollars by selling advertisements on their sites:
The teen said his monthly revenue was in the four figures, a considerable sum in a country
where the average monthly pay is 360 euros ($383). As he navigated his site's statistics, he
dropped nuggets of journalism advice.
"You have to write what people want to see, not what you want to show," he said, scrolling
through The Political Insider's stories as a large banner read "ARREST HILLARY NOW."
The 3,000 Facebook ads Congress is investigating are part of a similar scheme. The mini-ads
promoted pages with hot button issues and click-bait puppy pictures. These pages were
themselves created to generate ad-clicks and revenue. As Facebook claims that "Russia" is
behind them, we will likely find some Russian teens who simply repeated the scheme their
Macedonian friends were running on.
With its "Russian influence" scare campaign the NYT follows the same business model. It is
producing fake news which attracts viewers and readers who's attention is then sold to
advertisers. Facebook is also profiting from this. Its current piecemeal release of vague
information keeps its name in the news.
After the mystery of "Russian" $3 ads for "adorable puppies" pages on Facebook has been
solved, Congress and the New York Times will have to move on. There next subject is probably
the "Russian influence campaign" on Youtube.
Russian Car Crash
Compilations have for years attracted millions of viewers. The "Russians" want to increase
road rage on U.S. highways. This again will - according to expert Clinton Watts - "amplify
divisive political issues across the political spectrum".
The car crash compilations, like the puppy pages, are another sign that Russia is waging war
against the people of the United States!
You don't believe that? You should. Trust your experienced politician!
This gets more chilling daily : now we learn Russia targeted Americans on Facebook by
"demographics, geography, gender & interests," across websites & devices, reached
millions, kept going after Nov. An attack on all Americans, not just HRC campaign washingtonpost.com/business/econo
It indeed gets more chilling. It's fall. It also generates ad revenue.
Posted by b on October 3, 2017 at 02:09 PM |
Permalink
"Russian interference" in Western faux democracies is just more Fake News that distracts from
the real issues. And all those real issues come down to this: the need to reign in the
oligarchs.
This is very easy to do via progressive taxation (with no loopholes).
<> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
The two words that the establishment fears most: Progressive Taxation .
You're presenting a very good concept/meme to understand: Fake news is click bait for
gain.
The same can be said for any sensationalism or shocking event - like the Kurdish
referendum, like the Catalonia referendum, like the Vegas shooting - or like confrontational
or dogmatic comments in threads about those events.
Everywhere we turn someone is trying to game us for some kind of gain. What matters is to
step back from the front lines where our sense is accosted and offended, to step back from
the automatic reflex, and to remember that someone triggered that reflex, deliberately, for
their gain, not ours.
We have to reside in reason and equanimity, because the moment we indulge in our righteous
anger or our strong convictions, the odds are extremely good that someone is playing us.
It's a wicked world, but in fact we live in an age when we can see its meta
characteristics like never before.
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
What we see is the biggest psyop., propaganda disinformation campaig ever in the western
media, far more powerful than "nuclear Iraq" of 2003.
Still, and this should be a warning, majority of people in EU/US believe this
nonsense.
I lol'd. But seriously the next step is a false flag implicating Russia. They're getting
nowhere assassinating Russian diplomats and shooting down Russian aircraft, both military and
civilian. Even overthrowing governments who are Russia-friendly hasn't seem to provoke a
response.
But I consider the domestic Russia buzz to be performance art, and I imagine it's become
even grating to some of its participants. How could it not be, unless everyone is heavily
medicated(a lot certainly are)? Anyway it's by design that the western media and the
political classes they serve need a script, they're incapable of discussing actual issues.
Independence has been made quaint.
The line between politics and product marketing has gone.
But no matter if "the Russians" influenced the US election or not - after all that is what
most countries do to each other - the FBI is correct that to be able to target audiences
according to demographics and individual traits is a powerful tool.
The newspapers had a clear agenda. An editorial in The New York Times, headlined In the
Terror by Radio, was used to censure the relatively new medium of radio, which was becoming
a serious competitor in providing news and advertising. "Radio is new but it has adult
responsibilities. It has not mastered itself or the material it uses," said the editorial
leader comment on November 1 1938. In an excellent piece in Slate magazine in 2013,
Jefferson Pooley (associate professor of media and communication at Muhlenberg College) and
Michael J Socolow (associate professor of communication and journalism at the University of
Maine) looked at the continuing popularity of the myth of mass panic and they took to task
NPR's Radiolab programme about the incident and the Radiolab assertion that "The United
States experienced a kind of mass hysteria that we've never seen before." Pooley and
Socolow wrote: "How did the story of panicked listeners begin? Blame America's newspapers.
... AND IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO COPY ORSON WELLES . . . In February 1949, Leonardo Paez and
Eduardo Alcaraz produced a Spanish-language version of Welles's 1938 script for Radio Quito
in Ecuador. The broadcast set off panic. Quito police and fire brigades rushed out of town
to fight the supposed alien invasion force. After it was revealed that the broadcast was
fiction, the panic transformed into a riot. The riot resulted in at least seven deaths,
including those of Paez's girlfriend and nephew. The offices Radio Quito, and El Comercio,
a local newspaper that had participated in the hoax by publishing false reports of
unidentified flying objects in the days preceding the broadcast, were both burned to the
ground.
Jackrabbit 2
No - the two words the Capital system fears the most are SURPLUS VALUE , the control of the
'profit principle' for social not private ends .
Jesus Christ, every friggin day we hear about Russians and then the next the lies falls
apart, STILL the stupid dumb liberal media keep coming up with new conspiracies spread them
as fact, and then try justify them even when they get debunked!
These people are indeed lunatic.
somebody | Oct 3, 2017 3:11:44 PM | 9 The American panic was a myth, the Equadorian panic in 1949 not so much. I listened to this
Radiolab podcast about same ... the details of how they pulled it off in a one-radio station
country pre-internet are interesting and valuable (they widely advertised a very popular music
program which was then "interrupted" by the hoax to ensure near-universal audience (including
the police and other authorities). Very very fews were "in on the joke" and it wasn't a
joke.
whole page on WooW:
http://www.radiolab.org/story/91622-war-of-the-worlds/
Great article.
I especially like the tactful way that modern clickbait farming is obliquely tied to the MSM
business model.
Facebook and Google have a lot to answer for.
"Lankford shocked the world this week by revealing that "Russian Internet trolls" were
stoking the NFL kneeling debate. ... Conservative outlets like Breitbart and Newsmax and
Fox played up the "Russians stoked the kneeling controversy" angle because it was in their
interest to suggest that domestic support for kneeling protests is less than what it
appears....
The Post reported that Lankford's office had cited one of "Boston Antifa's"
tweets. But the example offered read suspiciously like a young net-savvy American goofing
on antifa stereotypes "More gender inclusivity with NFL fans and gluten free options at
stadiums We're liking the new NFL #NewNFL #TakeAKnee #TakeTheKnee." ...
The group was most
likely a pair of yahoos from Oregon named Alexis Esteb and Brandon Krebs. "
Pity Rolling Stone got caught up in that fake college rape allegation, they have actually
done some solid reporting. Every MSM outlet has had multiple fake stories, so should RS be
shunned for life for one bad story?
It is time that sane part of independent media understood that there is no more need to
rationally respond to psychotic delusions of Deep State puppets in Russia gate, since it is
unnecessarily mentally exhausting and intellectually futile, it is namely pure provocation
and as such it should be ignored and not proliferated even in its criticism making a fakes
news a real news by sole fact of mentioning it on the respectable independent sites.
There are only two effective responses to provocation namely silence or violence, anything
else plays the book of provocateurs.
Now they're seriously undermining their claims of intentionality ... as well as their wildly
inflated claims effect on outcome or even effective "undermining" ... again, compared to
Citizens United and the long-count of 2000 ... negligible....
And still insisting that Hillary Clinton is Russia's Darth Vader against whom unlimited
resources are marshalled because she must be stopped ... even though she damn near won... and
the reasons she lost seems unrelated to such vagaries as the DNC e-mails or facebook
campaigns (unless you believe she had a god-given right to each and every vote)
Why do you think this is important enough to make the effort to write another blog entry B?
Everyone who wants to know that this is all fantasy knows by now.
'Congress is investigating 3,000 suspicious ads which were run on Facebook. These were
claimed to have been bought by "Russia" to influence the U.S. presidential election in favor
of Trump.
This is the same US congress that regularly marches off to Israel to receive orders
This isn't about the "truth" (or lies) wrt Russian involvement, it's about the
increasingly rapid failure of the Government/Establishment's narrative ...
Increasingly they can't even keep their accusations "alive" for more than a few days ...
and some of their accusations (like the one here, that some "Russian" sites were created and
not used, but to be held for use at some future date) become fairly ridiculous ... and the
"remedy" to "Russians" creating clickbait sites for some future nefarious use, I think can
only be banning all Russians from creating sites ... or maybe using facebook altogether ...
all with no evidence of evil-doers actually doing evil...
It's rather like Jared Kushner's now THIRD previously undisclosed private e-mail account
... fool me once versus how disorganized/dumb/arrogant/crooked is this guy?
Sorry to be off topic but yesterday the Saker of the Vineyard published a couple of articles
about Catalonia. The first was a diatribe, a nasty hatchet job on the Catalan people which
included the following referring to the Catalan people:
"The Problems they have because with their corruption, inefficiency, mismanagement,
inability and sometimes the simplest stupidity, are always the fault of others (read
Spaniards here) which gives them "carte blanche" to keep going on with it."
"... They (the independistas) are NATIONAL SOCIALIST (aka NAZI) in their Ideology"
Then Saker published an article by Peter Koenig that was reasonable and what we have come
to expect. Then he forbade all comments on either of the two articles. My comment was banned,
which simply said in my opinion from working for fourteen years in Spain that the Catalans
were extremely efficient in comparison with their Madrid counterparts.
I must admit that I became a fan of watching those Russian car crashes that were captured by
the cams many russian drivers keep on their dash boards. Some of these were very funny. I was
not aware that made me a victim of Putin propaganda. In any case, they are not that
interesting anymore once they were commercialized. That was about 10 years ago.
The whole digital media and ad business that have built the Google and Facebook media
juggernauts is all a giant scam. Smart advertisers like P&G are recognizing it for what
it is and will slowly pullback. It is only a matter of time before others catch on and these
companies will bleed ad revenues.
OT - more from comedy central - daily USA press briefing from today...
"QUESTION: On Iran, would you and the State Department say, as Secretary Mattis said
today, that staying in the JCPOA would be in the U.S. national interest?
MS NAUERT: Yeah.
QUESTION: Is this a position you share?
MS NAUERT: So I'm certainly familiar with what Secretary Mattis said on Capitol Hill
today. Secretary Mattis, of course, one of many people who is providing expertise and counsel
to the President on the issue of Iran and the JCPOA. The President is getting lots of
information on that. We have about 12 days or so, I think, to make our determination for the
next JCPOA guideline.
The administration looks at JCPOA as – the fault in the JCPOA as not looking at the
totality of Iran's bad behavior. Secretary Tillerson talked about that at length at the UN
General Assembly. So did the President as well. We know that Iran is responsible for terror
attacks. We know that Iran arms the Houthi rebels in Yemen, which leads to a more miserable
failed state, awful situation in Yemen, for example. We know what they're doing in Syria.
Where you find the Iranian Government, you can often find terrible things happening in the
world. This administration is very clear about highlighting that and will look at Iran in
sort of its totality of all of its bad behaviors, not just the nuclear deal.
I don't want to get ahead of the discussions that are ongoing with this – within the
administration, as it pertains to Iran. The President has said he's made he's decision, and
so I don't want to speak on behalf of the President, and he'll just have to make that
determination when he's ready to do so."
I think the key to collapse of Soviet society and its satellites was the victory of
neoliberal ideology over communism. It was pure luck for neoliberalism was that its triumphal
march over the globe coincide with deep crisis of both communist ideology and the Soviet elite
(nomenklatura) in the USSR. Hapless, mediocre Gorbachov, a third rate politician who became the
leader of the USSR is a telling example here. Propaganda, especially "big troika" (BBC,
Deutsche Welle and
Voice of America), also played a very important role in this. Especially in Baltic countries and
Ukraine.
Domestic fake new industry always has huge advantage over foreign one in the USA and other
Western countries, because of general cultural dominance of the West.
The loss of effectiveness of neoliberal propaganda now is the same as the reason for loss of
effectiveness of communist propaganda since 60th. In the first case it was the crisis of
communist ideology, in the second is the crisis of neoliberal ideology. Everybody now understands
that the neoliberal promises were fake, and "bait and switch" manuver that enriched the tiny
percentage of population (top 1% and even more 0.01%).
When the society experience the crisis of ideology it became inoculated toward official
propaganda -- it simply loses its bite.
Notable quotes:
"... As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only 0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board. ..."
"... RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets. ..."
"... Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to it. ..."
"... There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's Southern segregationist ticket. ..."
"... Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?") ..."
"... Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of Americans. ..."
"... In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience. ..."
The Russians can dish it out, but don't expect Americans to swallow everything.
During the Cold War, it became an article of faith among Western policymakers and
journalists: One of the most effective ways to discredit the leaders of Communist countries
would be to provide their citizens with information from the West. It was a view that was
shared by Soviet Bloc regimes who were worried that listening to the Voice of America (VOA) or
watching Western television shows would induce their people to take political action against
the rulers.
So it was not surprising that government officials in East Germany, anxious that many TV
stations from West Germany could be viewed by their citizens, employed numerous means!such as
jamming the airwaves and even damaging TV antennas that were pointing west!in order to prevent
the so-called "subversive" western broadcasts from reaching audiences over the wall.
After the Berlin Wall collapsed in 1989, communication researchers studying public attitudes
in former East German areas assumed that they would discover that those who had access to West
German television!and were therefore exposed to the West's political freedom and economic
prosperity!were more politically energized and willing to challenge the communist regime than
those who couldn't watch Western television.
But as Evgeny Morozov recalled in his Net Delusion: The
Dark Side of Internet Freedom , a study conducted between 1966 and 1990 about incipient
protests in the so-called "Valley of the Clueless"!an area in East Germany where the government
successfully blocked Western television signals!raised questions about this conventional
wisdom.
As it turns out, having access to West German television actually made life in East Germany
more endurable. Far from radicalizing its citizens, it seemed to have made them more
politically compliant. As one East German dissident quoted by Morozov lamented, "The whole
people could leave the country and move to the West as a man at 8pm, via television."
Meanwhile, East German citizens who did not have access to Western German television were
actually more critical of their regime, and more politically restless.
The study concluded that "in an ironic twist for Marxism, capitalist television seems to
have performed the same narcotizing function in communist East Germany that Karl Marx had
attributed to religious beliefs in capitalist society when he condemned religion as the 'opium
of the people.'"
Morozov refers to the results of these and other studies to raise an interesting idea:
Western politicians and pundits have predicted that the rise of the Internet, which provides
free access to information to residents of the global village, would galvanize citizens in
Russia and other countries to challenge their authoritarian regimes. In reality, Morozov
contends that exposure to the Internet may have distracted Russian users from their political
problems. The young men who should be leading the revolution are instead staying at home and
watching online pornography. Trotsky, as we know, didn't tweet.
Yet the assumption that the content of the message is a "silver bullet shot from a media gun
to penetrate a hapless audience," as communication theorists James Arthur Anderson and Timothy
P. Meyer put it, remains popular among politicians and pundits today, despite ample evidence to
the contrary.
Hence the common assertion that a presidential candidate who has raised a lots of money and
can spend it on buying a lots of television commercials, has a clear advantage over rivals who
cannot afford to dominate the media environment. But the loser in the 2016 presidential race
spent about $141.7 million on ads, compared with $58.8 million for winner's campaign, according
to NBC News . Candidate Trump also spent a fraction of what his Republican rivals had
during the Republican primaries that he won.
Communication researchers like Anderson and Meyers are not suggesting that media messages
don't have any effect on target audiences, but that it is quite difficult to sell ice to
Eskimos. To put it in simple terms, media audiences are not hapless and passive. Although you
can flood them with messages that are in line with your views and interests, audiences actively
participate in the communication process. They will construct their own meaning from the
content they consume, and in some cases they might actually disregard your message.
Imagine a multi-billionaire who decides to produce thousands of commercials celebrating the
legacy of ISIS, runs them on primetime American television, and floods social media with
messages praising the murderous terrorist group. If that happened, would Americans be rallying
behind the flag of ISIS? One can imagine that the response from audiences would range from
anger to dismissal to laughter.
In 2013 Al Jazeera Media Network
purchased Current
TV , which was once partially owned by former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, and launched
an American news channel. Critics expressed concerns that the network, which is owned by the
government of Qatar and has been critical of U.S. policies in the Middle East, would try to
manipulate American audiences with their anti-Washington message.
Three years later, after hiring many star journalists and producing mostly straight news
shows, Al Jazeera America CEO Al Anstey announced that the network would cease
operations. Anstey cited the "economic landscape" which was another way of saying that its
ratings were distressingly low. The relatively small number of viewers who watched Al
Jazeera America 's programs considered them not anti-American but just, well, boring.
You don't have to be a marketing genius to figure out that in the age of the 24/7 media
environment, foreign networks face prohibitive competition from American cable news networks
like CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, social media, not to mention Netflix and yes, those online porno
sites. Thus the chances that a foreign news organization would be able to attract large
American audiences, and have any serious impact on their political views, remain very low.
That, indeed, has been the experience of not only the defunct Al Jazeera America ,
but also of other foreign news outlets that have tried to imitate the Qatar-based network by
launching operations targeting American audiences. These networks have included CGTN (China
Global Television Network), the English-language news channel run by Chinese state broadcaster
China Central
Television ; PressTV, a 24-hour English language news and documentary network affiliated
with Islamic Republic of Iran
Broadcasting ; or RT (formerly Russia Today), a Russian international television network funded by the
Russian
government that operates cable and satellitetelevision channels directed to
audiences outside of Russia.
After all, unless you are getting to paid to watch CTGN, PressTV, or RT -- or you are a news
junkie with a lot of time on your hands -- why in the world would you be spending even one hour of
the day watching these foreign networks?
Yet if you have been following the coverage and public debate over the alleged Russian
interference in the 2016 presidential election, you get the impression that RT and another
Russian media outlet, Sputnik (a news agency and radio broadcast service established by the
Russian
government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya ), were central players
in a conspiracy between the Trump presidential campaign and the Kremlin to deny the presidency
to Hillary Clinton.
In fact, more than half of the much-cited January report on the Russian electoral
interference released by U.S. intelligence agencies was devoted to warning of RT's growing
influence in the United States and across the world, referring to the "rapid expansion" of the
network's operations and budget to about $300 million a year, and citing the supposedly
impressive audience numbers listed on the RT website.
According to America's spooks, the coordinated activities of RT and the online-media
properties and social-media accounts that made up "Russia's state-run propaganda machine" have
been employed by the Russian government to "undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic
order."
And in a long cover story in TheNew York Times Magazine this month, with the
headline, "
RT, Sputnik and Russia's New Theory of War, " Jim Rutenberg suggested that the Kremlin has
"built one of the most powerful information weapons of the 21st century" and that it "may be
impossible to stop."
But as the British Economist magazine reported early this year, while RT claims to
reach 550 million people worldwide, with America and Britain supposedly being its most
successful markets, its "audience" of 550 million refers to "the number of people who can
access its channel, not those who actually watch it."
As the The Economist notes, a 2015 survey of the top 94 cable channels in America by
the research firm Nielsen found that RT did not even make it into the rankings, capturing only
0.04 percent of viewers, according to the Broadcast Audience Research Board.
The Times' s Rutenberg argues that the RT's ratings "are almost beside the point." RT
might not have amassed an audience that remotely rivals CNN's in conventional terms, "but in
the new, 'democratized' media landscape, it doesn't need to" since "the network has come to
form the hub of a new kind of state media operation: one that travels through the same diffuse
online channels, chasing the same viral hits and memes, as the rest of the
Twitter-and-Facebook-age media."
Traveling "through the same diffuse online channels" and "chasing the same viral hits and
memes" sounds quite impressive. Indeed, RT has claimed dominance on YouTube, an assertion that
apparently caught the attention of the U.S. intelligence community, which noted that RT videos
get 1 million views a day, far surpassing other outlets.
But as The Economist points out, when it comes to Twitter and Facebook, RT's reach is
narrower than that of other news networks. Its claim of YouTube success is mostly down to the
network's practice of buying the rights to sensational footage -- for instance, Japan's 2011
tsunami -- and repackaging it with the company logo. It's not clear, however, how the
dissemination of a footage of a natural disaster or of a dog playing the piano helps efforts to
"undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
It is obvious that the Russian leaders have been investing a lot of resources in RT,
Sputnik, and other media outlets, and that they employ them as propaganda tools aimed at
promoting their government's viewpoints and interests around the world. From that perspective,
these Russian media executives are heirs to the communist officials who had been in charge of
the propaganda empire of the Soviet Union and its satellites during much of the 20th
Century.
The worldwide communist propaganda machine did prove to be quite effective during the Great
Depression and World War II, when it succeeded in tapping into the economic and social
anxieties and anti-Nazi sentiments in the West and helped strengthen the power of the communist
parties in Europe and, to some extent, in the United States.
But in the same way that Western German television programs failed to politically energize
East Germans during the Cold War, much of the Soviet propaganda distributed by the Soviet Union
at that time had very little impact on the American public and its political attitudes, as
symbolized by the shrinking membership of the American Communist Party.
Or as media-effects theorists explain the communication process, the intentions of the
producer (Soviet Union) and the conventions of the content (communist propaganda) were
interwoven in a strategy aimed at influencing the receiver (the American audience). But the
majority of Americans, with the exception of a few hard-core ideologues, interpreted the
content of the message as pitiful Soviet propaganda, assuming they even paid attention to
it.
Soviet propaganda may have scored limited success during the Cold War when it came to
members of the large communist parties in France, Italy, and Japan, as well as exploited
anti-American sentiments in some third-world countries. In these cases, the intentions of the
producer and the convention of the message seemed to be in line with the interpretations of the
receivers.
There is no doubt that Moscow, which regarded President Harry Truman as its leading American
political nemesis, was hoping that Progressive presidential candidate Henry Wallace would win
the 1948 election -- and had tailored its propaganda effort in accordance with that goal. That
pro-Wallace campaign took place at a time when the American Communist Party still maintained
some influence in the United States, where many Americans still sympathized with the former
World War II ally and a large number of Soviet spies were operating in the country. But then
Wallace's Progressives ended up winning 2.5 percent of the vote, less than Strom Thurmond's
Southern segregationist ticket.
Yet we are supposed to believe that by employing RT, Sputnik, Facebook, Twitter, and a bunch
of hackers, the Russians could help their American candidate "steal" the 2016 presidential
election. Is there any evidence that those white blue-collar workers and rural voters in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan -- the people who provided Trump with his margin of victory -- were
even exposed to the reports distributed by RT and Sputnik, or by the memes constructed by
Russian trolls or their posts on Facebook? ("Hey, did you watch RT last night?")
Yet the assertion that a "silver bullet shot from a media gun" in the form of Russian
propaganda was able "to penetrate a hapless audience" in the United States has been gaining
more adherents in Washington and elsewhere. This conspiracy seems to correlate the intent of
the Russian government and the content of their messages with the voting behavior of
Americans.
In a strange irony, those who are promoting this fallacious assertion may -- unlike their
Russian scapegoat -- actually succeed in penetrating a hapless American audience.
Leon Hadar is a writer and author of the books Quagmire: America in the Middle East and
Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in the New York Times,
The Washington Post, Washington Times, The Los Angeles Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and the National Interest.
For an example of the success of propaganda, look at Breitbart. The messages online during
the 2016 election were pervasive and insidious. I think this post underestimates the threat
by focusing on traditional media instead of social interaction.
RT covered Assange during the election better than other outlets.
It's easy to see everything from a personal perspective and forget that we are very
diverse. We don't live in an ABC, CBS, and NBC world anymore, with information controlled.
Changes in thought and belief happen online now, in many, many different venues.
A government that has confidence in its own support doesn't need to fight foreign
information. In the '30s and '40s the US government encouraged shortwave listening, and
manufacturers made money by adding SW bands to their radios. We were going through a
depression and then a war, but our government was CONFIDENT enough to encourage us to
understand the world.
Since 1950 the government has been narrowing the focus of external input because it knows
that it no longer has the natural consent of the governed. TV and the Web are intentional
forms of jamming, filling our eyes and ears with internally produced nonsense to crowd out
the external info.
The ones you have to worry about are those much closer to home – "inside the tent".
Friends in the UK, Canada, and Europe are appalled at the distorting effect Israeli
propaganda has on American news sources, and how unaware of it typical Americans seem to
be.
Indeed, it is odd and more than a little worrying that all the concern about "foreign
meddling" has so far failed to engage with Israel, which is hands down the best funded, most
sophisticated and successful foreign meddler.
The FBI annually reports that Israel spies on us at the same level as Russia and China.
But we have yet to fully register that Israeli spying includes systematic efforts to
influence American elections and policies, efforts that dwarf those of Putin's Russia both in
scale and impact.
I think that the corporate masters of propaganda media and politics in these United States,
have, in the words of Edward G. Robinson's Rico in Little Caesar, "gotten to where you can
dish it out, but you can't take it anymore."
It's counterfactual to conflate Soviet propaganda with the perspective of Russians today,
unless Communism never really was the real point. In fact, it's our own leaders in media and
politics who now increasingly issue dogmatic and insulting derogatory language, sounding more
and more like late Soviet propagandists themselves.
So what? What's wrong with people being exposed to a broad array of points of view, trying
to better understand the world and constantly challenging, refining, and reshaping their
worldview in the process?
You're coming perilously close to suggesting that Americans who are critical of their
government are dupes of hostile foreign powers ! an unfair, unhelpful, and undemocratic
assertion.
The problem with Russian trolls is that people don't know they are Russian trolls. They think
they are their fellow Americans and neighbors on Facebook. The influence of foreign
propaganda on Americans is not due to transparent media like Al Jazeera. It's due to
propaganda disguised as your neighbor's opinion.
this conversation cant be taken serious without a serious discussion on Israel, who by the
way provides the perfect case and point of how effective foreign propaganda can be. They work
through our media, school systems and even our churches. Just look at what happened to McGraw
Hill for daring to show before and after maps of the Palestine over the years.
"... Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being Kremlin disinformation dupes. ..."
"... "In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News, the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working for the Russians." ..."
"... The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton. The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they knew it or not. ..."
"... Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression, harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too. ..."
"... The Reagan Era kicked off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s - defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein & Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy. ..."
"... The image at the top of this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator, published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism may be interested in you. ..."
"... It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election cycle later in the Reagan Revolution. ..."
"... Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts, the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian prostitutes in our current panic. . . . ..."
"... To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office in 1986. ..."
"... Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis - now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally appropriated from the alt-Right's guru. ..."
"... Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors. I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons. ..."
"... These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically opposed on so many other issues. ..."
"... The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution. Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin "active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans. Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album". ..."
"... 'Russia is a bigger threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any way, shape or form. ..."
"... The Cold War is over, so now the US can reveal its truly feral nature. ..."
"... American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common good of the Syrians today. ..."
"... It's always 'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world, how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever we can and enrich the 1%. ..."
"... It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence. ..."
"... Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could get their hands on them [ Operation Paperclip ] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they say ..."
"... American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet Union. ..."
"... A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ ..."
"... It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies, the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media. ..."
"... They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors, and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger. ..."
"... Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but an excuse for warmongering since 1989. ..."
"... I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious ipso facto ..."
"... Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace. ..."
"... Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at all times though! ..."
"... The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. ..."
"... Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100 million to the Foundation. ..."
By Mark Ames, founding editor of the Moscow satirical paper The eXile and co-host of the Radio
War Nerd podcast with Gary Brecher (aka John Dolan). Subscribe here. Originally published at
The eXiled
Mother Jones recently announced it's "redoubling our Russia reporting"-in the words of editor
Clara Jeffery. Ain't that rich. What passes for "Russia reporting" at Mother Jones is mostly just
glorified InfoWars paranoia for progressive marks - a cataract of xenophobic conspiracy theories
about inscrutable Russian barbarians hellbent on subverting our way of life, spreading chaos, destroying
freedom & democracy & tolerance wherever they once flourished. . . . because they hate us, because
we're free.
Western reporting on Russia has always been garbage, But the so-called "Russia reporting" of the
last year has taken the usual malpractice to unimagined depths - whether it's from Mother Jones or
MSNBC, or the Washington Post or Resistance hero Louise Mensch.
But of all the liberal media, Mother Jones should be most ashamed for fueling the moral panic
about Russian "disinformation". It wasn't too long ago that the Reagan Right attacked Mother Jones
for spreading "Kremlin disinformation" and subverting America. There were threats and leaks to the
media about a possible Senate investigation into Mother Jones serving as a Kremlin disinformation
dupe, a threat that hung over the magazine throughout the early Reagan years. A new Senate Subcommittee
on Security and Terrorism (SST for short) was set up in 1981 to investigate Kremlin "disinformation"
and "active measures" in America, and the American "dupes" who helped Moscow subvert our way of life.
That subcommittee was created to harass and repress leftist anti-imperial dissent in America, using
"terrorism" as the main threat, and "disinformation" as terrorism's fellow traveller. The way the
the SST committee put it, "terrorism" and "Kremlin disinformation" were one and the same, a meta-conspiracy
run out of Moscow to weaken America.
And Mother Jones was one of the first American media outlets in the SST committee's sites.
Adam Hochschild, the founding editor of Mother Jones (and author of some great books including
King Leopold's Ghost), responded publicly to the threats coming out of the Senate in the early Reagan
years. In a New York Times op-ed published in late 1981, "Dis-(Mis-?)Information", Hochschild wrote
about a Republican Senate mailer sent out to 290 radio stations that accused Mother Jones of being
Kremlin disinformation dupes. The mailer, on Senate letterhead, featured a tape recording of an interview
between the chairman of the SST subcommittee, Sen. Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, and a committee witness-
a "disinformation expert" named Arnaud de Borchgrave, author of a bestselling spy novel called "The
Spike" - about a fictional Kremlin plot to subvert the West with disinformation, and thereby rule
the world.
Here's how Hochschild described the Republican Senate mailer in his NYTimes piece:
"In it, the writer Arnaud de Borchgrave accuses Mother Jones, the Village Voice, the Soho News,
the Progressive magazine of serving as disseminators of K.G.B. 'disinformation' – the planting of
false or misleading items in news media. "Mr. de Borchgrave provided no specific examples of facts or articles. But, then, the trouble
with the K.G.B. is that you don't know what disinformation it is feeding you because you don't know
who its myriad agents are. So the only safe thing is to distrust any author or magazine too critical
of the United States. Because anyone who is against, say, the MX or the B-1 bomber could be working
for the Russians."
Here, the Mother Jones founder describes the menacing logic of pursuing the "Kremlin disinformation"
conspiracy: any American critical of US military power, police power, corporate power, overseas power
. . . anyone critical of anything that powerful Americans do, is a Kremlin disinformation dupe whether
they know it or not. That leaves only the appointed accusers to decide who is and who isn't a Kremlin
agent.
Hochschild called this panic over Kremlin disinformation another "Red Scare", warning,
"[T]o accuse critical American journalists of serving as its unwitting dupes makes as little sense
as Russians accusing rebellious Poles of being unwitting agents of American imperialism. When Mr.
de Borchgrave accuses skeptical journalists of being unwitting purveyors of disinformation, the accusation
is more slippery, less easy to definitively disprove, and less subject to libel law than if he were
to accuse them of being conscious Communist agents.
" Although if you believe the K.G.B. is successfully infiltrating America's news media, then anything
must seem possible."
It's a damn shame today's editorial staff at Mother Jones aren't aware of their own magazine's
history.
Then again, who am I fooling? Mother Jones wouldn't care if you shoved their faces in their own
recent history - they're way too donor-deep invested in pushing this "active measures" conspiracy.
Trump has been a goldmine of donor cash for anyone willing to carry the #Resistance water.
PutinTrump was a project set up last fall by tech plutocrat Rob Glaser, CEO and founder of RealNetworks,
to scare voters into believing that voting for Trump is treason. God knows I can't stand Trump or
his politics, but of all the inane campaign ideas to run on - this?
One would've thought that the smart people would learn their lesson from the election, that running
against a Kremlin conspiracy theory is a loser. But instead, they seem to think the problem is they
didn't fear-monger enough, so they're "redoubling" on the Russophobia. Donor money is driving this
- donor cash is quite literally driving Mother Jones' editorial focus. And it really is this crude.
Take for example a PutinTrump section titled "Russian Expansion" - the scary Red imagery and language
are lifted straight out of the Reagan Cold War playbook from the early-mid 80s, when, it so happens,
Mother Jones was targeted as a Kremlin dupe. Featuring a lot of shadowy red-colored alien soldiers
over an outline of Crimea, Mother Jones' donor-partner promotes a classic Cold War propaganda line
about Russian/Soviet expansionism-a lie that has been the basis for so many wars launched to "stop"
this alleged "expansionism" in the past, wars that Mother Jones is supposed to oppose. Here's what
MJ's partner writes now:
RUSSIAN EXPANSION
Through unknowing manipulation, or by direct support, Trump will become an accessory to the continual
expansionism committed by Putin. Might does not equal right-and it never has for Americans-but Putin's Russia plays by different
rules. Or maybe no rules at all.
The communist/leftist imagery is there for a reason. In case you haven't noticed, Clinton
supporters have waged a crude PR campaign to blame their candidate's loss on leftists, whom they equate with
neo-Nazis and Trump. I've been smeared as "alt-left" by a Vanity Fair columnist, who equated me with Breitbart and other far-right journalists, for the crime of not sufficiently supporting Hillary Clinton.
The larger goal of this crude PR effort is to equate opposition to Hillary Clinton with treason and
Nazism. Which was exactly the goal of Reagan's "Kremlin disinformation" hysteria - the whole point
was to smear critics of Reagan and his right-wing politics as pro-Kremlin traitors, whether they
knew it or not.
* * *
What's kind of shocking to me as someone who was alive in the Reagan scare is how unoriginal this
current one is. Even the words and the terminology are plagiarized from the Reagan Right witch-hunting
campaign - "Kremlin active measures"; "Kremlin disinformation"; "Kremlin dupes" - terms introduced
by right-wing novelists and intelligence hucksters, and repeated ad nauseam until they transformed
into something plausible, giving quasi-academic cover to some very old-fashioned state repression,
harassment, surveillance . . . and a lot of ruined lives. That's what happened last time, and if
history is any guide, it's how this one will end up too.
Today we're supposed to remember how cheerful and optimistic the Reagan Era was. But that's now
how I remember it, it's not how it looked to Mother Jones at the time - and it's not how it looks
when you go back through the original source material again and relive it. The Reagan Era kicked
off with a lot of dark fear-mongering about the Kremlin using disinformation and active measures
to destroy our way of life. Everything that the conservative Establishment loathed about 1970s -
defeat in Vietnam, Church Committee hearings gutting the CIA and FBI, the cult of Woodward & Bernstein
& Hersh, peace marchers, minority rights radicals - was an "active measures" treason conspiracy.
As soon as the new Republican majority in the Senate took power in 1981, they set up a new subcommittee
to investigate Kremlin disinformation dupes, called the Senate Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism.
Staffers leaked to the media they intended to investigate Mother Jones. Panic spread across the progressive
media world, and suddenly all those cool Ivy League kids who invested everything in becoming the
next Woodward-Bernsteins - the cultural heroes at the time - got scared. The image at the top of
this article comes from a lead article in Columbia University's student newspaper, the Spectator,
published a few weeks after Reagan took office, on SST committee's assault on Mother Jones. The headline
read: The New McCarthyism / Are You Now, Or Have You Ever Been and the the full-page article begins, If you subscribe to Mother Jones, give money to the American Civil Liberties Union, or support
the Institute for Policy Studies, Senator Jeremiah Denton's new Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism
may be interested in you.
It describes how in the 1970s Americans finally got rid of HUAC and the Senate Internal Security
Committee, the Red Scare witch-hunting Congressional committees - only to have them revived one election
cycle later in the Reagan Revolution.
By the end of Reagan's first year in office, there was still no formal investigation into Mother
Jones, but the harassment was there and it wasn't subtle at all - such as the Republican Senate mailer
accusing the magazine of being KGB disinformation dupes. At the end of 1981, MJ editor/founder Adam
Hochschild announced he was stepping aside, and in his final note to readers and the public, he wrote:
To Senator Jeremiah Denton, chair of the Subcommittee on Security and Terrorism: If your committee
investigates Mother Jones, a plan hinted at some months ago, I demand to be subpoenaed. I would not
want to miss telling off today's new McCarthyites.
So here we are a few decades later, and Mother Jones' editor Clara Jeffery is denouncing WikiLeaks
- yesterday's journalism stars, today's traitors - as "Russia['s] willing dupes and propagandists"
while Mother Jones magazine turned itself into a mouthpiece for America's spies peddling the same
warmed-over conspiracy theories that once targeted Mother Jones.
* * *
Jeremiah Denton - the New Right senator from Alabama who led the SST committee investigation into
Kremlin "disinformation" and its dupes like Mother Jones - believed that America was being weakened
from within and had only a few years left at most to turn it around. As Denton saw it, the two most
dangerous threats to America's survival were a) hippie sex, and b) Kremlin disinformation. The two
were inseparable in his mind, linked to the larger "global terrorism" plot masterminded by Moscow.
To fight hippie sex and teen promiscuity, the freshman senator introduced a "Chastity Bill" funding
federal programs that promoted the joys of chastity to Americans armies of bored, teen suburban long-hairs.
A lot of clever people laughed at that, because at the time the belief in linear historical progress
was strong, and this represented something so atavistic that it was like a curiosity more than anything
- Pauly Shore's "Alabama Man" unfrozen after 10,000 years and unleashed on the halls of Congress.
Less funny were Denton's calls for death penalty for adulterers, and laws he pushed restricting
women's right to abortion.
Jeremiah Denton was once a big name in this country. Americans have since forgotten Denton, because
John McCain pretty much stole his act. But back in the 70s and early 80s, Denton was America's most
famous Vietnam War hero/POW. Like McCain, Denton was a Navy pilot shot down over Vietnam and taken
prisoner. Denton spent 1965-1973 in North Vietnamese POW camps-two years longer than McCain-and he
was America's most famous POW. His most famous moment was when his North Vietnamese captors hauled
him before the cameras to acknowledge his crimes, and instead Denton famously blinked out a Morse
code message: "T-O-R-T-U-R-E".
In the 1973 POW exchange deal between Hanoi and Nixon, "Operation Homecoming," it was Denton who
was the first American POW to come off the plane and speak to the American tv crews (McCain was on
the same flight, but not nearly as prominent as Denton). I keep referring back to McCain here because
not only were they both famous Navy pilot POWs, but they both wind up becoming the most pathologically
obsessive Russophobes in the Senate. Just a few days ago, McCain said that Russia is a bigger threat
to America than Islamic State. Something real bad must've happened in those Hanoi Hiltons, worse
than anything they told us about, because those guys really, really hate Russians - and they reallywant
the rest of us to hate Russians too.
Everything they loathed about America, everything that was wrong with America, had to be the fault
of a hostile alien culture. There was no other explanation for what happened in the 1970s. The America
that Denton came home to in 1973 was under some kind of hostile power, an alien-controlled replica
of the America he last saw in 1965. Popular morality had been turned on its head: Hollywood blockbusters
with bare naked bodies and gutter language! Children against their parents! Homosexuals on waterskis!
Sex and treason! Patriots were the enemy, while America-haters were heroes! Denton re-appeared like
some reactionary Rip Van Winkle who went to sleep in the safe feather-bed world of J Edgar Hoover's
America - only to wake up eight years later on Bernadine Dohrn's futon, soaked in Bill Ayers' bodily
fluids. For Denton, the post-60s cultural shock came on all at once - as sudden and as jarring as,
well, the shock so many Blue State Americans experienced when Donald Trump won the election last
November.
Sex, immorality & military defeat-these were inseparable in Denton's mind, and in a lot of reactionaries'
minds. Attributing all of America's social convulsions of the previous 15 years to immorality and
a Kremlin disinformation plot was a neat way of avoiding the complex and painful realities - then,
as now.
"No nation can survive long unless it can encourage its young to withhold indulgence in their
sexual appetites until marriage." - Jeremiah Denton
What hit Denton hardest was all the hippie sex and the pop culture glorification of hippie sex.
It's hard to convey just how deeply all that smug hippie sex wounded tens of millions of Americans.
It's a hate wound that's still raw, still burns to the touch. A wound that fueled so much reactionary
political fire over the past 50 years, and it doesn't look like it'll burn out any time soon.
Back in 1980, Denton blamed all that pop culture sex on Russian active measures, and he did his
best to not just outlaw it, but to demonize sex as something along the lines of treason.
Just as so many people today cannot accept the idea that Trump_vs_deep_state is Made In America-so Denton
and his Reagan Right constituents believed there had to be some alien force to explain why Americans
had changed so drastically, seeming to adopt values that were the antithesis of Middle America's
values in 1965. It had to be the fault of an alien voodoo beam! It had to be a Russian plot!
And so, therefore, it was a Russian plot.
A 1981 Time magazine profile of the freshman Senator begins, Denton believes that America is being destroyed by sexual immorality and Soviet-sponsored political
'disinformation'-and that both are being promoted by dupes, or worse, in the media. By the mid-1980s,
he warns, "we will have less national security than we had proportionately when George Washington's
troops were walking around barefoot at Valley Forge."
Sexual immorality -- it's a common theme in all the Russia panics of the past 100 years-whether the
sexually liberated Emma Goldmans of the Red Scare, the homosexual-panic of the McCarthy witch-hunts,
the hippie orgies of Denton's nightmares, or Trump's supposed golden shower fetish with immoral Russian
prostitutes in our current panic. . . .
To fight the Kremlin disinformation demons, Denton set up the Senate Subcommittee on Security
and Terrorism (SST), with two other young Republican senators-Orrin Hatch, who's still haunting Capitol
Hill today; and John East of North Carolina, a Jesse Helms protege who later did his country a great
service by committing suicide in his North Carolina garage, before the end of his first term in office
in 1986.
Sen. East's staffers leaned Nazi-ward, like their boss. One Sen. East staffer was Samuel Francis
- now famous as the godfather of the alt-Right, but who in 1981 was known as the guru behind the
Senate's "Russia disinformation" witch hunt. Funny how that works - today's #Resistance takes its
core idea, that America is under the control of hostile Kremlin disinformation sorcerers - is culturally
appropriated from the alt-Right's guru.
Another staffer for Sen. East was John Rees, one of the most loathsome professional snitches of
the post-McCarthy era, who collected files on suspected leftists, labor activists and liberal donors.
I'll have to save John Rees for another post - he really belongs in a category by himself, proof
of Schopenhauer's maxim that this world is run by demons.
These were the people who first cooked up the "disinformation" panic. You can't separate the Sam
Francises, Orrin Hatches, John Easts et al from today's panic-mongering over disinformation - you
can only try to make sense of why, what is it about our culture's ruling factions that brings them
together on this sort of xenophobic witch-hunt, even when they see themselves as so diametrically
opposed on so many other issues. I don't think this is something as simple as hypocrisy - it's actually
quite consistent: Establishment faction wakes up to a world it doesn't recognize and loathes and
feels threatened by, and blames it not on themselves or anything domestic, but rather on the most
plausible alien conspiracy they can reach for: Russian barbarians. Anti-Russian xenophobia is burned
into the Establishment culture's DNA; it's a xenophobia that both dominant factions, liberal or conservative,
view as an acceptable xenophobia. When poorer "white working class" Americans feel threatened and
panic, their xenophobia tends to be aimed at other ethnics - Latinos and Muslims these days - a xenophobia
that the Establishment views as completely immoral and unacceptable, completely beyond the pale.
The thought never occurs to them that perhaps all forms of xenophobia are bad, all bring with them
a lot of violence and danger, it just depends on who's threatened and who's doing the threatening
The subversion scare and moral panic were crucial in resetting the culture for the Reagan counter-revolution.
Those who opposed Reagan's plans, domestically and overseas, would be labeled "dupes" of Kremlin
"active measures" and "disinformation" conspiracies, acting on behalf of Moscow whether they knew
it or not. The panic incubated in Denton's subcommittee investigations provided political cover for
vast new powers given to the CIA, FBI, NSA and other spy and police agencies to spy on Americans.
Fighting Russian "active measures" grew over the years into a massive surveillance program against
Americans, particularly anyone involved in opposing Reagan's dirty wars in Central America, anyone
opposing nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants, and anyone involved in providing sanctuary to
refugees from south of the border. The "active measures" panic even led to FBI secret investigations
into liberal members of Congress, some of whom wound up in a secret "FBI terrorist photo album".
I'll get to that "FBI Terrorist Photo Album" story later. There's a lot of recent "Kremlin disinformation"
history to recover, since it seems every last memory cell has been zapped out of existence.
After Reagan's inauguration (the most expensive, lavish inauguration ball in White House history),
Senator Denton sent a chill through the liberal and independent media world with all the talk coming
out of his committee about targeting activists, civil rights lawyers and journalists. Denton tried
to come off as reasonable some of the times; other times, he came right out and said it: "disinformation"
is terrorism: When I speak of a threat, I do not just mean that an organization is, or is about to be, engaged
in violent criminal activity. I believe many share the view that support groups that produce propaganda,
disinformation or legal assistance may be even more dangerous than those who actually throw the bombs.
Congratulations Mother Jones, you've come a long way, baby! Next post, I'll recover some of the early committee hearings, and the rightwing hucksters, creeps
and spooks who fed Denton's committee.
I think that John McCain may well be correct, if for the wrong reasons. 'Russia is a bigger
threat to America than Islamic State.' is almost certainly true. If one insists, as the US has
done, on standing at the border of the bears lair and poking it with a very short stick, then
there may well be consequences. On the other hand, Islamic State is no threat to the US in any
way, shape or form.
This is now, that was then. There is no comparison. The Cold War is over, so now the US
can reveal its truly feral nature. It seems both parties are struggling to bring back the
1960s with Cold War 2.0. We need to pull out of the Middle East, and invade Vietnam, again ;-(
And yes, probably even back then, Mother Jones was controlled opposition. They just don't bother
hiding it anymore.
@Disturbed Voter – Dontcha know. We just signed deals with Viet Nam that will bring "billions
of dollars" to the U.S. Trump said so last week after meeting with the Vietnamese Prime Minister,
so it must be true. They're safe for now. :-)
American slogan Violence R Us. Not judging, just being honest. We were no more interested
in the common good of the Vietnamese back then, any more than we are interested in the common
good of the Syrians today.
Our nation worries about other countries' problems but we never care about ours! It's always
'Russia this, Russia that', how we're going to bring democracy to some other part of the world,
how some country's leader is a dictator. These are excuses we can do reverse Robin Hood wherever
we can and enrich the 1%.
Magazines (tabloids) and (fake)news organization are cheer leaders to this effort because they
cash in on the chant du jour.
Thank you so much for exposing in such great detail the hypocrisy regarding MJ s recent
neo-Red Scare leanings. If only the editorial staff at dear MJ would educate themselves
not only about their own organization's history, but history in general, they might avoid looking
like complete fools and enemies to their own institution's founding principles when we collectively
reminisce on this bizarre era at some point in the future.
It's my duty to point out that the glaring similarities in this brand of cold war Russophobia
with that of pre-WW2 anti-Comintern material coming out of Nazi Germany (or even the anti-Semitic
material from the early 1900s) are no coincidence.
Among the Nazi intelligence officers and scientists we spirited away before the Russians could
get their hands on them [
Operation Paperclip
] were a few sly operators who immediately started filling our elected leaders' ears with
stories of Reds under the bed. One of these reps was Senator Joe McCarthy and the rest, as they
say
American-produced historical documentaries tell it like we were united as a country in support
of Stalin against Hitler. This reluctance is usually credited to not wanting to get into another
bloodbath like WW1 but let's be straight- about half the country (proto-deplorables?) wanted nothing
to do with helping the commies beat the Nazis and actually thought the Germans weren't the bad
guys. Anti-communism, big brother to anti-unionism and first cousin to anti-Semitism, was all
the rage before we helped Uncle Joe beat Hitler, making it all the easier to revive after the
war was over and it looked like the only threat to US world domination was a war-weakened Soviet
Union.
As a kid in the 80s I remember MJ being singled out as a leftist commie rag by Reaganites
of the day. Through college this was about all I knew about the magazine– as an epithet for what
hippie commie liberals read before trying to ruin our country. Despite it leaning to my political
inclinations, I never paid it any attention.
A few years ago, with the advent of internet freeness, I'd added MJ to my news stream.
Once Sanders- then later Trump- started looking like an actual threat to the Clinton campaign,
their headlines started turning snippy and trite toward her opposition. I turned them off my feed
last year, so the only exposure to their drivel is thanks to the links here at NC . Now
with the advent of twitter, their staff have taken the extra step of proving how twisted their
personal Russophobian views really are. Between just Corn and Jeffery, there's enough material
to make any McCarthyite proud.*
[* – I was going to close with ' and make Adam Hochschild roll in his grave' but then I googled
him and discovered that he's still alive. Wonder what he thinks about this current turn at the
magazine he co-founded?]
Reposting a comment that IMV, snapshots the reality of Russophobia far better than Ames (it
was in response to a Ray McGovern article on Trump's visit to NATO HQ) :
"Ray has written well to the general audience, bridging the information gap for those heavily
propagandized. He has properly shown the expansion of NATO as an act of calculated betrayal, a
policy of aggression in the face of zero threat.
It is sensible but really too polite to say that NATO expanded because "that is what bureaucracies
do and it became a way for U.S. presidents to show their 'toughness.'" To expand a bureaucracy
by subversion of Ukraine and false reports of Russian aggression, to show toughness by aggression
rather than defense, requires the mad power grasping of tyrants in the military, the intel agencies,
the NSC, the administration, Congress. and the mass media.
They are joined in a tyranny of inventing foreign monsters, to pose falsely as protectors,
and to accuse their moral superiors of disloyalty, as Aristotle warned. This is the domestic political
power grab of tyrants, a far greater danger.
Tyranny is a subculture, a groupthink of bullies who tyrannize each other and compete for the
most radical propositions of nonexistent foreign threats. They fully well know that they are lying
to the people of the United States to serve a personal and factional agenda that involves the
murder of millions of innocents, the diversion of a very large fraction of their own and other
nations' budgets from essential needs, and they have not an ounce of humanity or moral restraint
among them. Those who waver are cast aside, and the worst of the bullies rise to the top. This
is why the nation's founders opposed a standing military, and they were right.
Apart from NATO and a few other treaties, the US would have no constitutional power to
wage foreign wars, just to repel invasions and suppress insurrections, and that is the way it
should be. Any treaty becomes part of the Supreme Law of the land, and must be rigorously restricted
to defense, with provisions for international resolution of conflicts. NATO has been nothing but
an excuse for warmongering since 1989.
Let us hope that Trump pulls the plug on NATO interventionism, accidentally or otherwise. The
Dem leaders have now joined the Reps in their love of bribes for genocide, but at the least the
Reps still don't like paying for it. Perhaps the last duopoly imitation of civilization."
I think this is much closer to the mark than the association of the anti-russia fearmongering
with sincere xenophobia. Russia is the go-to foreign enemy because there is such a huge and convenient
stockpile of propaganda material lying around in stockpiles, but left unused because of the tragic
and abrupt end of Cold War 1.0. And Russia is a great target because it is distant, and has a
weird alphabet. Anyone who knows enough about Russia to contradict the disinformation (like by
mentioning that they are not commies, but US-style authoritarian oligarchs) is suspicious
ipso facto .
Having lived in Kansas for 60 some years which is the poster-child for trickle-down necromancy
and a land heavily infused with rural, German-Catholic sensibilities, I can vouch for the deeply
felt attitudes towards sex as a primary issue. "Family Values" being the code word for the whole
sex and reproductive moral prism.
Like Cuba with its 50s autos, the conservatives have never given up their 60s conception of
the Democrats as the party of free love, peace-nicks (soft on commies hard on guns) and tax and
spend bleeding hearts coddling dependent malingerers.
The GOP here campaigns against a democrat party that no longer exists (if it ever did). They
seem oblivious to the fact that the democrats have become the moderate republicans of yore.
Both parties being pro wall street deficit and war hawks differing in perhaps degree .with
the Demos supporting a more generous portion of calf's foot jelly being distributed to peasants
of more varied hue as they also support privatization, more subtle tax cuts and deregulation for
the rich, R2P wars, and globalization's race to the bottom. People seem to inhabit their own Plato's
Cave each opposing their own particular artfully projected phantom menace.
Brilliant, as Ames usually is. Especially the point that this is a manifestation of consistent
anti-left sentiment within the establishment whether R or D. The confounding of Putin's Russia
with some imagined communist threat always amazes me. D's got to keep up the hippie-punching at
all times though!
This is a great piece. The Russophobia is stuck on an endless loop. I wish they'd at least
come up with new lies or some fresh enemy for us all to fear. Tell me about why South African
dupes are causing all the problems in society, tell me that the people of the Maldives each own
a nuclear capable artillery piece and are burning American flags.
Thanks for this post down memory lane. I assumed MJ was liberal. And Jane Fonda was a conservative.
And by 1981 I was completely confused about where the media stood on any given issue. And now
finally the mask is coming off and we can see (Phillip K. Dick style) that left is right and right
is left. And we are all fascists. Will the real Atilla please stand up? #Resistance is a little
over the top and so is putintrump. But what looks like actual progress is the fact that Bernie
was not completely destroyed by the state paranoia. There has to be a certain bed-rock decency
that can rise above this eternal crap. Just a note of interest on the young Orrin Hatch being
on the SST as a freshman senator. Orrin was the subject of local rumors that claimed he had been
put in the senate by the mafia (some mormon-mafia connection in las vegas) and the fact that they
did use entrapment with a hooker to disgrace his opponent was mafia-enough to make the story convincing.
The story died out fast. But we should all remember that the mafia was involved in its own anti-commie
terrorist tactics for decades.
file under Too Weird: 15 minutes after I posted the above I got a call from Orrin Hatch's robo-computer
inviting me to a local discussion call me paranoid.
@Susan the other – It's not paranoia if someone really is out to get you. Or, to get all of
us. Or, demonstrates that they have the ability to do so at will.
Only 16% of people surveyed are very worried about climate change.
Corporate news is consumed with covering the Trump/Russia affair, but whatever the truth of
all this turns out to be, it pales in significance to the real existential threat that is upon
us. Largely due to a lack of coverage by corporate television news, there is a dangerous lack
of public awareness of it.
land of the free and home of the brave you have to be brave to live in this free-for-all.
Just want to pass on this killer quote from Discover Magazine: "It is sometimes argued that the
illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately judge all possible moves with
the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished information." what a nightmare
world.
"It is sometimes argued that the illusion of free will arises from the fact that we can't adequately
judge all possible moves with the result that our choices are based on imperfect or impoverished
information."
Accepting that premise does not rule out the possibility of free will, it only suggests that
our free will is likely mired in a blind stumbling, darkness of unknowing.
Hallelujah.
If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to
hear.
George Orwell. Every one has that 'right', right or wrong! But it is your right & duty to develop 'critical' thinking to DISCERN the difference
Without defending Trump, it is wrong of the Dems to push this stuff when Ukrainians helped
Clinton's campaign and Clinton approved Uranium One getting 20% of US uranium when they gave $100
million to the Foundation. The book "Shattered" says her campaign did internal polling which found
Uranium One was the most damaging line to use against Clinton so she decided to get her retaliation
in first and use the Russia charge at every opportunity. And on election night when they realised
they had been defeated they decided to blame Russia again. What has Trump done for Russia so far?
He's kept up sanctions and bombed their client state Syria. Whereas Clinton had a pattern of arms
sales to Foundation donors. Prefer Clinton? Fine, but not over this.
"... The New York Times is prepping the American people for what could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to that. ..."
"... At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism. Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been demonized in the Western media. ..."
"... The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists." ..."
"... Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate. ..."
"... For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother Russia. ..."
"... The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and honest journalism. ..."
"... America's Stolen Narrative, ..."
"... The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit, relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets, to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked to build. ..."
"... THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and see their plight). ..."
"... The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record? ..."
"... To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words, the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just might find it. Good luck. ..."
The NYT's Yellow Journalism on Russia September 15, 2017
Exclusive: The New York Times' descent into yellow journalism over Russia recalls the
sensationalism of Hearst and Pulitzer leading to the Spanish-American War, but the risks to
humanity are much greater now, writes Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
Reading The New York Times these days is like getting a daily dose of the "Two Minutes Hate"
as envisioned in George Orwell's 1984, except applied to America's new/old enemy
Russia. Even routine international behavior, such as Russia using fictitious names for
potential adversaries during a military drill, is transformed into something weird and
evil.
In the snide and alarmist style that the Times now always applies to Russia, reporter Andrew
Higgins wrote
– referring to a fictitious war-game "enemy" – "The country does not exist, so it
has neither an army nor any real citizens, though it has acquired a feisty following of
would-be patriots online. Starting on Thursday, however, the fictional state, Veishnoriya, a
distillation of the Kremlin's darkest fears about the West, becomes the target of the combined
military might of Russia and its ally Belarus."
This snarky front-page story in Thursday's print editions also played into the Times' larger
narrative about Russia as a disseminator of "fake news." You see the Russkies are even
inventing "fictional" enemies to bully. Hah-hah-hah -- The article was entitled, "Russia's War
Games With Fake Enemies Cause Real Alarm."
Of course, the U.S. and its allies also conduct war games against fictitious enemies, but
you wouldn't know that from reading the Times. For instance,
U.S. war games in 2015 substituted five made-up states – Ariana, Atropia, Donovia,
Gorgas and Limaria – for nations near the Caucasus mountains along the borders of Russia
and Iran.
In earlier war games, the U.S. used both fictitious names and colors in place of actual
countries. For instance, in 1981, the Reagan administration conducted "Ocean Venture" with that
war-game scenario focused on a group of islands called "Amber and the Amberdines," obvious
stand-ins for Grenada and the Grenadines, with "Orange" used to represent Cuba.
In those cases, the maneuvers by the powerful U.S. military were clearly intended to
intimidate far weaker countries. Yet, the U.S. mainstream media did not treat those war
rehearsals for what they were, implicit aggression, but rather mocked protests from the obvious
targets as paranoia since we all know the U.S. would never violate international law and invade
some weak country -- (As it turned out, Ocean Venture '81 was a dress rehearsal for the actual
U.S. invasion of Grenada in 1983.)
Yet, as far as the Times and its many imitators in the major media are concerned, there's
one standard for "us" and another for Russia and other countries that "we" don't like.
Yellow Journalism
But the Times' behavior over the past several years suggests something even more sinister
than biased reporting. The "newspaper of record" has slid into yellow journalism, the practice
of two earlier New York newspapers – William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal and
Joseph Pulitzer's New York World – that in the 1890s manipulated facts about the crisis
in Cuba to push the United States into war with Spain, a conflict that many historians say
marked the beginning of America's global empire.
Except in today's instance, The New York Times is prepping the American people for what
could become World War III. The daily message is that you must learn to hate Russia and its
President Vladimir Putin so much that, first, you should support vast new spending on America's
Military-Industrial Complex and, second, you'll be ginned up for nuclear war if it comes to
that.
At this stage, the Times doesn't even try for a cosmetic appearance of objective journalism.
Look at how the Times has twisted the history of the Ukraine crisis, treating it simply as a
case of "Russian aggression" or a "Russian invasion." The Times routinely ignores what actually
happened in Ukraine in late 2013 and early 2014 when the U.S. government aided and abetted a
violent coup that overthrew Ukraine's elected President Viktor Yanukovych after he had been
demonized in the Western media.
Even as neo-Nazi and ultranationalist protesters hurled Molotov cocktails at police,
Yanukovych signaled a willingness to compromise and ordered his police to avoid worsening
violence. But compromise wasn't good enough for U.S. neocons – such as Assistant
Secretary of State Victoria Nuland; Sen. John McCain; and National Endowment for Democracy
President Carl Gershman. They had invested too much in moving Ukraine away from Russia.
Nuland put the U.S. spending at $5 billion and was caught discussing with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who should be in the new government and how to "glue" or
"midwife this thing"; McCain appeared on stage urging on far-right militants; and Gershman
was
overseeing scores of NED projects inside Ukraine, which he had deemed the "biggest prize"
and an important step in achieving an even bigger regime change in Russia, or as he put it:
"Ukraine's choice to join Europe will accelerate the demise of the ideology of Russian
imperialism that Putin represents. Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the
near abroad but within Russia itself."
The Putsch
So, on Feb. 20, 2014, instead of
seeking peace , a sniper firing from a building controlled by anti-Yanukovych forces killed
both police and protesters, touching off a day of carnage. Immediately, the Western media
blamed Yanukovych. Sen. John McCain appearing with Ukrainian rightists of the Svoboda party at a pre-coup rally
in Kiev.
Shaken by the violence, Yanukovych again tried to pacify matters by reaching a compromise
--
guaranteed by France, Germany and Poland -- to relinquish some of his powers and move up an
election so he could be voted out of office peacefully. He also pulled back the police.
At that juncture, the neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists spearheaded a violent putsch on Feb.
22, 2014, forcing Yanukovych and other officials to flee for their lives. Ignoring the
agreement guaranteed by the three European nations, Nuland and the U.S. State Department
quickly deemed the coup regime "legitimate."
However, ethnic Russians in Crimea and eastern Ukraine, which represented Yanukovych's
electoral base, resisted the coup and turned to Russia for protection. Contrary to the Times'
narrative, there was no "Russian invasion" of Crimea because Russian troops were already there
as part of an agreement for its Sevastopol naval base. That's why you've never seen photos of
Russian troops crashing across Ukraine's borders in tanks or splashing ashore in Crimea with an
amphibious landing or descending by parachute. They were already inside Crimea.
The Crimean autonomous government also voted to undertake a referendum on whether to leave
the failed Ukrainian state and to rejoin Russia, which had governed Crimea since the Eighteenth
Century. In that referendum, Crimean citizens voted by some 96 percent to exit Ukraine and seek
reunion with Russia, a democratic and voluntary process that the Times always calls
"annexation."
The Times and much of the U.S. mainstream media refuses even to acknowledge that there
is another side to the Ukraine story. Anyone who mentions this reality is deemed a "Kremlin
stooge" in much the same way that people who questioned the mainstream certainty about Iraq's
WMD in 2002-03 were called "Saddam apologists."
But what is particularly remarkable about the endless Russia-bashing is that – because
it started under President Obama – it sucked in many American liberals and even some
progressives. That process grew even worse when the contempt for Russia merged with the Left's
revulsion over Donald Trump's election.
Many liberals came to view the dubious claims of Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election
as the golden ticket to remove Trump from the White House. So, amid that frenzy, all standards
of proof were jettisoned to make Russia-gate the new Watergate.
The Times, The Washington Post and pretty much the entire U.S. news media joined the
"resistance" to Trump's presidency and embraced the neocon "regime change" goal for Putin's
Russia. Very few people care about the enormous risks that this "strategy" entails.
For one, even if the U.S. government were to succeed in destabilizing nuclear-armed
Russia sufficiently to force out President Putin, the neocon dream of another malleable Boris
Yeltsin in the Kremlin is far less likely than the emergence of an extreme Russian nationalist
who might be ready to push the nuclear button rather than accept further humiliation of Mother
Russia.
The truth is that the world has much less to fear from the calculating Vladimir Putin
than from the guy who might follow a deposed Vladimir Putin amid economic desperation and
political chaos in Russia. But the possibility of nuclear Armageddon doesn't seem to bother the
neocon/liberal-interventionist New York Times. Nor apparently does the principle of fair and
honest journalism.
The Times and rest of the mainstream media are just having too much fun hating Russia and
Putin to worry about the possible extermination of life on planet Earth.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
jo6pac , September 15, 2017 at 4:51 pm
Amerikas way of bring the big D to your nation. Death
Bingo -- In a surely related story, the mainstream press is equally relentless in AVOIDING
telling Americans the facts about Israel, and especially about its control over the American
press. "Israel lobby is never a story (for media that is in bed with the lobby)" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/09/israel-lobby-never/
Virtually everything average Americans have been told about Israel has been, amazingly, an
absolute lie. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel
overpowered and victimized a defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew
the Arab armies were in poor shape and would be unable to resist the zionist army. Muslim
"citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews. Israelis are
NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are under
constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis. Israel does NOT share
America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of equal human rights for
all.
How has this gigantic package of outright lies has been foisted upon the American public
for so long? And how long can it continue? It turns out they did not foresee the internet,
and the facts are leaking out everywhere. So it appears they're desperately coercing facebook
and google to rig their rankings, trying to hide the facts. But one day soon there will be a
'snap' in the collective mind, and everybody will know that everybody knows.
JWalters
I can tell you are angry. I too was angry when I figured it out.
Long before I figured it out, I was a soldier. Our unit was prepared for an exercise and we
were all sleeping at the regiment compound, the buses would arrive at zero-dark thirty. I was
reading a book about the ME(this was shortly after 9-11). A friend, came up and asked what I
was reading. I told him I was reading about the Balfour paper and how that had a significant
effect on the ME. He began explaining to me how the zionist movement had used the idea that
no one lived on that land, to force the people from that land, out of that land.
I quickly responded that Israel had defended that land against 5 Arab armies and managed to
hold on to that land. I informed him he was mistaken.
He agreed to disagree, and walked away.
This happened way back in 2002 if only I could pick his mind now. How did he know about this,
way back before the internet was in any shape to wake people up?
There is hope still that guys who are young as i was, will say "Fuck You I defend this line
and no further."
Without their compliance, there can be no wars.
CommonTater your story parallels mine -- I was in the military, went to Vietnam to 'defend
our nation against communism', felt horror at the Zionist stories of how Palestinians
rocketed them, was told by senior officer about what Zionism is really about and I, like you,
disbelieved him. That was in 1974 -- -- Now, with all the troubles in the world I won't read the
MSP but look towards the alternative news sources. They make more sense. But as I try to
educate others on what I have learned I am as disappointed as my senior officer must have
been back them. Articles such as this one reproduced by ICH are gems: I save and print them
in a compendium detailing ongoing war crimes.
Thanks Mr. Parry,
You are a voice in the hurricane of hatred and lies propagated by the richest people on the
planet.
Eventually some moron who believes this new York Times garbage will actually unleash the bomb
and we will all be smoke.
That has always been the result of such successful propaganda. And it is very successful. It
has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners .
Michael Fish
Agreed. I wish this clear and comprehensive article could be stapled on every American
voter's door (wanted to say forehead but violence is bad). Many would toss it in the trash.
Many would not agree even with full comprehension because of their own horrid beliefs. But
maybe a few would read it and have an epiphany. It's very hard work to find an avenue to
change the minds of millions of people who've been inculcated by nationalist propaganda since
birth. Since 4 years old seeing the wonderful National Anthem and jets fly over the stadium
of their favorite sports team. Since required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in
school.
I refused to stand for or recite the Pledge when I was seven or eight years old. I was
sent to detention. My awesome mom though intervened and afterwards I could remain seated
while most or all other kids stood up to do the ritual. I refuse to stand up and place
hand-on-heart and remove cap during any sporting contests when the Anthem is played. I've
been threatened with physical violence by many strangers around me.
Thanks Mr. Parry, your voice is appreciated, your articles and logic are top-notch. Very
valuable stuff, available for the curious, the skeptical. Well, until Google monopolizes
search algorithms and calls this a Russian fake news site, perhaps or Congress the same
My hat is off to you sir, I have not been to any sporting events since I woke up, but I
imagine it would be very difficult to remain seated and hatted during the opening affirmation
of nationalism. My waking up coincides with a drastic drop in sports viewing. I used to be an
NFL fan, rooted for the Niners (started watching NFL in the late eighties), the last full
season I followed was the 2013-14 season.
It was the Ukraine coup that woke me up. It started when watching videos on youtube of guys
stomping on riot cops, using a fire hose on them like a reverse water cannon. Then I realized
these guys were the peaceful protesters being talked about on t.v. It was like a thread
hanging in front of me, I began pulling and pulling until the veil in front of my eyes came
apart. It was during this time I discovered consortiumnews.com.
Mr Common Tater–just appreciating reading that someone else "woke up". That is the
way it has felt to me. For me it was Oct 2002 and Bush's speech that was clearly heading us
to war in Iraq. The "election" (appointment) of Bush in 2000 though was the first alarm clock
that I started to hear. Most recent wake up is connected to Mr Parry's relentless (I hope)
and necessary debunking of the myth of Russian nastiness and corresponding myth of US
rectitude. Been watching The Untold History of the United States and have been dealing with
the real bedrock truth that my government invented and invents enemies as a tactic in a
game–ie. it's a bunch of boys thinking foreign relationship building is first and
foremost a game. It has been hard to wash away all this greasy insidious smut from my
life.
It sucks to wake up, in a way. Once one gets past the denial, Tom Clancy novel type movies
lose some of it's fun, although still entertaining. One secretly knows the audience in the
cinema is just eating it all up and loving it. The American hero yells "yippie kayay mother
f -- -r" as he defeats the post-Soviet Russian villain in Russia blowing up buildings, and
destroying s–t as he saves the world for democracy. The Russian authorities amount to
some guy in Soviet peaked hat, and long coat, begging for a bribe.
Oliver Stone's series is really good, it turns history on his head and shakes all the pennies
out his pockets. Another good reporter is John Pilger, he has a long list of docs he has done
over several decades.
I have been watching that same series, about 3 episodes in. The most mind blowing part to
think about is how the establishment consipired to block the nomination of the progressive
Henry Wallace as a repeat VP for Roosevelt, leading instead to Harry Truman's nomination as
VP, and then you know the rest of the story.
Funny how history repeated itself with the nomination of Clinton instead of Sanders. Btw,
after Sanders mistakenly jumped on the Russia bashing bandwagon he was one of the few who
voted against the recent sanctions being imposed against Russia, Iran, and North Korea. So
yeah, I'd feel alot better with a Sanders president at this point.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:21 pm
Apart from the obvious Exceptionalist and Zionazi imperative to destroy Russia and China
in order that God's Kingdom of 'Full Spectrum Dominance' be established across His world by
his various 'Chosen People', the USA always needs an enemy. Now, more than ever, as the
country crumbles into disrepair and unprecedented inequality, poverty and elite arrogance,
the proles must be led to blame their plight on some Evil foreign daemon.
Only this time its
no Saddam or Gaddaffi or Assad that can be easily bombed back to that Stone Age that all the
non-Chosen must inhabit. This time the bullying thugs will get a, thermo-nuclear, bloody nose
if they do not back off. Regretably, their egos refuse to withdraw, even in the interest of
self-survival.
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:13 am
" It has almost occluded any truth for the vast majority of westerners."
You are so right about that, I notice it every day on other forums on which I discuss current
affairs with others: the US views are the accepted ones, and I get a lot of stick for stating
different views. It is actually frightening to see how few people can think for
themselves.
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The American people are being systematically lied to, and they don't have a clue that it
is happening. There is no awake and intelligent public to prevent what is unfolding. The
worst kind of criminals are in charge of our government, media, and military. The sleeping
masses are making their way down the dark mountain to the hellish outcome that awaits
them.
"These grand and fatal movements toward death: the grandeur
of the mass
Makes pity a fool, the tearing pity
For the atoms of the mass, the persons, the victims, makes it
seem monstrous
To admire the tragic beauty they build.
It is beautiful as a river flowing or a slowly gathering
Glacier on a high mountain rock-face,
Bound to plow down a forest, or as frost in November,
The gold and flaming death-dance for leaves,
Or a girl in the night of her spent maidenhood, bleeding and
kissing.
I would burn my right hand in a slow fire
To change the future I should do foolishly. The beauty
of modern
Man is not in the persons but in the
Disastrous rhythm, the heavy and mobile masses, the dance of the
Dream-led masses down the dark mountain."
Robinson Jeffers
HopeLB , September 15, 2017 at 10:36 pm
Great, Dark and Accurate poem -- Thank You -- Think I'll send it to Rachel Maddow, Wapo and
the NYTimes.Might do them some good. Wouldn't that be lovely.
Patrick Lucius , September 16, 2017 at 12:42 am
Which poem is that? Not Shine, perishing Republic, is it?
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs,
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots,
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of gas-shells dropping softly behind.
Gas -- GAS -- Quick, boys -- -- An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime. --
Dim through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams, you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil's sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues, --
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
******************************
And this, from Bob Dylan's "Jokerman" .
Freedom just around the corner for you
But with the truth so far off, what good will it do?
******************************
I love life and am by nature a cockeyed optimist, but I find myself intermittently gloomy,
my optimism overwhelmed by cynicism, when I see the abundance of moronic belligerence so
passionately snarled out in the comments sections across the internet. Clearly, humans are
cursed with an addiction to violence For my part, I am old and will die soon and have no
children, plus I live in a quiet backwater far away from the nuclear blast zone. Humanity
seems on course for a major "culling". Insane and sad.
I'd like to see more investigative reporting on the NYT's and other major media outlets'
links to the CIA and other Deep State info-war bureaus. What the Times is doing now is
reminiscent of the Michael Gordon-Judith Miller propaganda in the run up to the invasion of
Iraq. Operation Mockingbird, uncovered during the mid-70s Church Hearings, is an ongoing
effort, it would seem. Revealing hard links to CIA information ops would be a great service
to humanity.
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:22 pm
After 'Michael Gordon-Judith Miller' I stopped reading the Times.
Beard681 , September 18, 2017 at 11:52 am
I am amazed at how many conspiracy types there are who want to see some sort of oligarch,
capitalist, zionist or deep state cabal behind it all. (That is a REALLY optimistic view of
the human propensity for violent conflict.) It is just a bunch of corporate shills pushing
for war (hopefully cold) because war sells newspapers.
Robert Parry has gotten this exactly right -- I'm a regular NYTimes subscriber /-have been
for years -- and I have NEVER read anything about Russia that has not been written by
professional Russia-haters like Higgins. Frankly, I don't get it. What accounts for this
weird and dangerous bias?
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Have you looked into who owns the NYT?
Paranam Kid , September 16, 2017 at 6:32 am
Why do you keep reading the NYT? Not only the Russia stories are heavily biased, but all
their stories are. Most op-ed's about Israel/Palestine are written by zealous
pro-Israel/pro-Zionists, against very few pro-Palestine people.
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:07 am
The Trans-Atlantic Empire of banking cartels rest upon enmity with the only other Great
Powers in the World: Russia and China, while keeping USA thoroughly within their orbit,
relying on our Great Power as the engine that powers this Western Bankers' Empire (the
steering room lies in City-of-London, who has LONG maneuvered, via their Wall Street assets,
to bring us into Empire). Should peaceful, cooperative and productive relations break out
between USA, Russia, and China, this would undermine everything the Western Empire has worked
to build.
THIS is why the phony Russiagate issue is flogged to get rid of Trump (who seeks
cooperation with Russia and China), AND keeping Russia as "The Enemy", keeping the MIC, Intel
community, various police-state ops, in high demand for "National Security" reasons (also
positioned to foil any democratic uprisings, should they see past the progs daily curtain and
see their plight).
Brad Owen , September 16, 2017 at 8:08 am
Progs=propaganda stupid iPad.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Here in Aust-failure I read the papers for many years until they became TOO repulsive,
particularly the Murdoch hate and fear-mongering rags. I also, and still do, masochistically
listen to the Government ABC and SBS. In all those years I really cannot recall any articles
or programs that reported on Russia or China in a positive manner, save when Yeltsin, a true
hero to all our fakestream media, was in charge. That sort of uniformity of opinion, over
generations, is almost admirable. And the necessity to ALWAYS follow the Imperial US ('Our
great and powerful friend') line leads to some deficiencies in the quality of the personnel
employed, as I one again reflected upon the other day when one hackette referred to (The
Evil, of course)Kim Jong-un as 'President Un', several times.
Jeff Davis , September 18, 2017 at 12:31 pm
"What accounts for this weird and dangerous bias?"
Several points:
The Russian -- formerly Commie -- -- boogieman is a profit center for the military, their
industrial suppliers, and the political class. That's the major factor. But also, the Zionist
project requires a bulked up US military "tasked" with "full spectrum" military dominance
--
the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the American jackboot on the world's throat forever -- to insure the
eternal protection of Israel. Largely unseen in this Israeli/Zionist factor is the
thousand-year-old blood feud between the Jews and Russians. They are ancient enemies since
the founding of Czarist Russia. No amount of time or modernity can diminish the passion of
that animus. (I suspect that the Zionist aim to "destroy" Russia will eventually backfire and
lead instead to the destruction of Israel, but really, we shouldn't talk about that.)
mike k , September 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm
The richest man in the world has the controlling interest in the NYT. Draw your own
conclusions.
Mexico, ground zero for the world fascist movement in the 20s and 30s (going by name
Synarchy Internationale still does) throuout Ibero-America, centered in PAN. The
Spanish-speaking World had to contend with Franco, and Salazar being in power so long in the
respective "Mother Countries" of the Iberian Peninsula. This was the main trail for the
ratlines to travel.
I saw a dead coyote on the side of the road the other day. I know you know what that means
to me, Mike. Omens are a lost art in these modern times, and I have no expertise in these
matters, but it struck my attention hard. It was on the right side of the road: trouble for
Trump coming from The Right? They are more potent than the ineffective Left, so this might be
the way Trump is pulled down.
Sfomarco , September 16, 2017 at 3:37 pm
Carlos Slim (f/k/a Salim)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:31 pm
Yes, but who bankrolls Slim?
Stiv , September 15, 2017 at 6:51 pm
I wouldn't even need to read this to know what's going to be said. After the last article
from Parry, which was very good and interesting .plowing new ground for him he's back to
rehashing the same old shit. Not that it's necessarily wrong, only been said about a hundred
times. Yawn
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:46 am
After months of so many people pointing out how and why the "Russia stole the election"
claim is false, it came roaring back (in liberal media) in recent days. It demands a
response.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:26 am
No one is required to read anything on CN.
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
RP brought lots of new things into play in his article and showed how they mesh together
and support one another "against Trump." I almost skipped it because so familiar with the
topic, but RP brought new light to the subject, in my humble opinion.
I do not need to read or watch established "news" media to know what's going to be said.
After the last b.s. story from the usual talking heads which was low brow and insulting to
the intelligence of the audience, they are back at it again same ol'shit by the same talking
heads. It is most definitely wrong, and it needs to be countered as much as possible not
yawning.
Gregory Herr , September 16, 2017 at 8:18 pm
That's what struck me just how absurdly insulting will the Times get?
And I think the point that trying to destabilize the Russian Federation may very well
bring about a more militant hardline Russia is important to stress.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:02 am
"Stiv" is a troll who makes this junk comment every time. Better to ignore him.
Colin , September 18, 2017 at 11:54 am
Were you planning to contribute anything useful to the discussion?
SteveK9 , September 15, 2017 at 7:19 pm
I always wonder what motivation the accusers believe you have when they call you a 'Putin
stooge'. Why would you be one? Are you getting paid? Of course not, so this is just a
judgment on your part. They could call you a fool, but accuse you of 'carrying water for the
Kremlin' as I heard that execrable creature, Adam Schiff say to Tucker Carlson? That just
makes no sense. Of course, none of it is rational.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:38 pm
They're insane. A crumbling Empire which was supposed to rule the world forever, 'Under
God' through Full Spectrum Dominance, but which, in fact, is disintegrating under its own
moral, intellectual and spiritual rottenness, is bound to produce hate-crazed zealots looking
for foreign scape-goats. Add the rage of the Clintonbots whose propaganda had told then for
months that the She-Devil would crush the carnival-huckster, and her vicious post-defeat
campaign to drive for war with Russia (what a truly Evil creature she is)and you get this
hysteria. Interestingly, 'hysteria' is the word used to describe Bibi Nutty-yahoo, the USA's
de facto 'capo di tutti capi', in Sochi recently when Putin refused to follow orders.
David Grace , September 15, 2017 at 7:30 pm
I have another theory I'd like to get reviewed. These are corporate wars, and not aimed at the stability of nations. It is claimed that in 1991, at the fall of the Soviet Union, the oligarchs were created by
the massive purchasing of the assets of the collapsing nation. The CIA was said to have put
together a 'bond issue' worth some $480 Billion, and it was used to buy farms, factories,
mineral rights and other formerly common holdings of the USSR. This 'bond issue' was never
repaid to the US taxpayers, and the deeds are in the hands of various oligarchs. Not all of
the oligarchs are tied to the CIA, as there were other wells of purchasers of the country,
but the ties to Trump are actually ties to dirty CIA or other organized crime entities.
The NY Times may be trying to capture certain assets for certain clients, and their
editorial policy reflects this.
David Grace . what have we here, a thinking man? I like your premise, and I haven't even
watched the link you supplied. That being said, I'll sign off and investigate that link.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:39 am
Conspiracy theories upon conspiracy theories, ensuring that the public will never be able
to root out the facts. People still argue about the Kennedy assassination 54 years later.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:39 pm
There is no rational 'argument' about what really happened to JFK.
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:12 pm
Most conspiracy theories are fantasy fiction. If you have real evidence, based on
verifiable facts, then it's not a theory any more. But most of the conspiracy theories
popular in the USA just serve popular vanity. We never have to accept our mistakes, our
crimes against humanity, etc. It's always THEIR fault.
We Americans over all are like small children, always making excuses.
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:23 pm
Some of the material on the Black Eagle Trust are suspect. It gives figures for stolen
Japanese war loot, for example, that are simply ludicrous. Figures of so many thousand tons
of gold, for example, when the references should probably be to OUNCES of gold.
One sniper in Ukraine overthrew the democratic government. Previously one sniper in Dallas
overthrew another democratic government. Are there any other examples?
Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens into
supposing they have value beyond their labour?
AshenLight , September 15, 2017 at 10:13 pm
> Is our infatuation with democracy just a propaganda thing – to fool citizens
into supposing they have value beyond their labour?
It's about control -- those who know they are slaves will resist and fight, but those who
mistakenly believe they are free will not (and if you give them even just a little comfort,
they'll tenaciously defend their own enslavement). It turns out this "inverted
totalitarianism" thing works a lot better than the old-fashioned kind.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:19 am
Indeed. Gurdjieff told the tale of a farmer whose sheep were always wandering off due to
his being unable to afford fences to keep them in. Then he had an idea, and called them all
together. He told some of them they were eagles, and others lions etc. They were now so proud
of their new identities that it never occurred to them anymore to escape from their master's
small domain.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 7:23 am
MLK is another example, as is Robert Kennedy.
Anna , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
The American patriots are coming out: "CIA Agent Whistleblower Risks All To Expose The
Shadow Government" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHbrOg092G
That would be the end of the Lobby, mega oilmen and the FedReserve criminals
mark , September 16, 2017 at 5:30 pm
Yes, snipers on rooftops in Deraa, southern Syria, in 2011. These mysterious figures fired
into crowds, deliberately targeting women and young children to inflame the crowd. At the
same time the same snipers killed 7 police officers. Unarmed police had been sent in to deal
with unrest without bloodshed. These police officers were armed only with batons.
This is a standard page from the CIA playbook. The mysterious snipers in Maidan Square in
2014 are believed to have been Yugoslavian mercenaries hired by the CIA
We all have some kind of a bias but fortunately most of us here know the difference
between bias and propaganda. Bias based on facts and our own values is often constructive but
the N.Y. Times(like most msm) has descended into disseminating insidious propaganda.
Unfortunately the search for truth requires a bit more research and time than most people are
willing to invest. Thankfully, Robert Parry continues his quest but the dragons are not easy
to slay. My own quest for truth once led to a philosophical essay. The cartoon at the
bottom(SH Chambers) sums it up. https://crivellistreetchronicle.blogspot.com/2016/07/truth-elusive-concept.html
Mike, thanks so much, I'll look forward to reading it(so far, I don't see it
Moderation?)
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:20 pm
If we have a bias towards honesty, that helps. It keeps one's mind more open and provides
a willingness to entertain various points of view. It's not naivete, however, but thoughtful
consideration coupled with awareness and that protects one from being easily manipulated. But
then, oppositely, there's a human tendency to want to be popular which inclines one towards
groupthink. But why that so entrenches itself, making people impervious to truth, is a
conundrum -- Maybe if the "why" can be answered, the "how" will become apparent -- how to reach
individuals with the truth as so oft told, though hard on the ears, at CN.
Jacob Leyva , September 15, 2017 at 10:12 pm
So what do you think of the Russia-Facebook dealings? When will we get an article on
that?
The Russian /Iranian vs the Ashkenazi has been going on for many, many years ..The USA is
to a large extent controlled by the Ashkenazi / Zionist agenda which literally owns most of
the MSM outlets .Agendas must be announced through propaganda to sway the sleeping public
toward conformity .The only baffling question that remains is why do Americans allow Zionist
to control such a large part of their great republic ?
Art , September 16, 2017 at 1:43 am
Robert, you come from intelligence. Why don't you look at Russia-gate from all possible
angles?
I suggest the following. Putin is an American spy. Russia-gate is created to make him a
winner, a hero.
And the specious confrontation is a good cover for Putin.
This is in a nutshell.
I can obviously say mu-uch more.
D.H. Fabian , September 16, 2017 at 2:33 am
Throughout 2017, we've seen a surge of efforts by both parties -- via the media that serve
them -- to build support for a final nuclear war. The focus jumps from rattling war sabers at
China (via Korea, at the moment) to rattling them at Russia, two nuclear-armed world powers.
This has been working to bring Russia and China together, resolving their years of conflict
in view of a potential world threat -- the US. Whatever their delusions, and regardless of
their ideology, our political leaders are setting the stage for the deaths of millions of us,
and the utter destruction of the US.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:59 am
Our political leaders have betrayed us.
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:42 pm
Thermo-nuclear war would cause human extinction, not just billions of casualties.
Jim Glover , September 16, 2017 at 3:15 am
It is the same now with North Korea and China. So what would happen if those nations were
destabilized by Sanctions or worse Russia, China Iran and more would support Kim. How to make
peace?
Dennis Rodman has the guts to suggest call and talk with Kim or "Try it you might like it
better than total mutual destruction". Think Love and Peace it can't hurt like all the war,
hate and fear the media keeps pushing for advertising profits. War and Fear is the biggest
racket on the planet. What can I do? Fighting a losing battle but it is fun tryin' to
win.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:57 am
We may be losing now, but who knows? It ain't over till it's over. Hang in there.
Great article- again . I used to live in the US, I used to live in Alaska, I used to live
in Crimea, Ukraine but now I live in Crimea, Russia and Smolensk, Ru. I watched this all go
down but it took awhile to see the entire picture. I seldom get any more emails from the
states – even my brother doesn't get it. They think I'm now a " commie" , I guess. I
see it as the last big gasp of hot, dangerous air from an Empire -- Exposed. Unfortunately,
its not over yet and maybe we/you will have more bad times ahead. Crimea this summer is doing
well with much work going on – from the badly needed new infrastructure to the new
bridge, the people are much better off than in Ukraine. They made the right choice in
returning to Mother Russia even though it was a no-brainer for them. The world is lucky to
have free writers like, Parry, Roberts, Vltchek, Pepe', the Saker and the intelligent
commenters are as important as the writers in spreading the Pravda. Spacibo Mr. Parry
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 6:54 am
Thanks for sharing with us GMC. And good luck to you.
ranney , September 16, 2017 at 4:22 am
YES -- -- -- -- -- Yes to all that you wrote Robert -- Thank you again for writing clearly and saying
what obviously needs to be said, but no one else will. We've been down this road before -i.e.
the media pulling us into wars of Empire – first the Spanish- American one, then a
bunch of others working up to Viet Nam, and then Iraq. Each one gets worse and now we're
reaching for a nuclear one. Keep writing; your voice gives some of us hope that just maybe
others will join in and stop the media from their constant "messages of hate" and the urging
of the public to a suicidal conflagration.
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 8:55 am
The funny thing about living through the 'fake news' era, is that now everyone thinks that
their news source is the correct news source. Many believe that outside of the individual
everyone else reads or listens too 'fake news'. It's like all of a sudden no one has
credibility, yet everyone may have it, depending on what news source you subscribe to. I mean
there's almost no way of knowing what the truth is, because everyone is claiming that they
are getting their news from reputable news outlets, but some or many aren't, and who are the
reputable news sources, if you don't mind my asking you this just for the record?
Come to think of it, the 'fake news' theme is brilliant considering that now we have no
bench mark for what the truth is, and by not having that bench mark for the truth we all go
our separate ways believing what we believe, because certainly my news source is the only
truthful one, and your news source is beyond questionable of how the news should be
reported.
People read headlines, but hardly do they ever read the article. Many hear news sound
bites, but never do they do the research required, in order to verify the stories accuracy.
Hear say works even more to rain in the clouds of mass deception. Then there are those who
sort of buy whatever it is the established news outlets are selling based on their belief
that it doesn't much matter anyway, because 'the establishment' lies to us all the time as a
rule, so what's the big deal to keep up on the news, because it's all obviously one big lie
isn't it? So not only do we have irresponsible news journalist, we also have a very large
number of a monopolized unqualified news gatherers who must accept what the various news
agencies report, regardless of what the truth may be. It's better the Establishment keep it
this way, because then the Establishment has better control over the 'mob grabbing the
pitchforks and sickles' and crying out justice for somebody's head. It's kind of like job
security for the Establishment, but in their case it's more like a 'keeping your elitist
head' security, if you know what I mean.
To learn how to deal with this 'fake news', I would suggest you start studying the JFK
assassination, or any other ill defined tragic event, and then you might learn how to
decipher the 'fake news' matrix of confusion to learn what you so desire to learn. I chose
this route, because when was the last time the Establishment brokered the truth in regard to
a happening such as the JFK assassination? Upon learning of what a few well written books has
to say, you will then need to rely on your own brain to at least give you enough satisfaction
to allow you to believe that you pretty well got it right, and there go you. In other words,
the truth is out there, hiding in plain sight, and if you are persistent enough you just
might find it. Good luck.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:29 am
The truth has never been that easy to find Joe. Actually all the beyond obvious propaganda
on the MSM might wake some people up to do the searching necessary to get closer to what is
really happening in their world. Maybe the liars have finally overplayed their hand? Or are
we the people really that dumb? (I am scared to hear the answer to that one -- )
Joe Tedesky , September 16, 2017 at 12:04 pm
I could be a wise guy, and say to you 'or so you say' in reply to your kind comment, but
then that would make me a troll.
All I'm saying mike is that in this era of 'fake news' we are all running about on
different levels, and never shall the two of us meet. That is unless you and I get our news
from the same source, but what are the odds of all of us getting the same news? It's
impossible, and I'm not quite that sure that that would be what we want either. Still without
an objective, and honest large media to set the correct narrative we end up in this place,
where you might find yourself doing a spread sheet study to come to some conclusion of what
is true, and what isn't.
Case in point, read about Russia-Gate here on consortiumnews, and then go listen to Rachel
Maddow report on the same thing. Two different sets of stories. Just try and reconcile what
you read on sites like this one concerning Ukraine, then go watch MSNBC or CNN. Never a
match. So you mike read consortiumnews, and your in laws read the NYT and watch CNN, and
there you go, a controversy arises between you and the in laws and with that life goes on,
but where is the correct news to be found to settle the score?
Once upon a time the established news agencies such as CNN, and the NYT, were the hallmark
of the news, and sites such as this one were the ones on the edge, now I'm convinced this
conviction has reversed itself.
Thanks mike for the reply. Joe
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:07 am
Wouldn't it be hilarious mike, if the dumbed down people attacked the Bastille under false
pretense? Especially if the lie had been concocted by the blinded by their own hubris sitting
powers to be. Talk about poetic justice, and well placed irony. Priceless --
Virginia , September 16, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Joe, Apparently people take the easy way out. And that's just it -- "the way out."
Extinction -- Maybe they haven't learned there's something worth learning about and living for.
I'm gonna concentrate on that. Open eyes that they might see
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:08 am
You are right Virginia, it is probably 'a way out', and God bless them for it. My late
Mother was like that, but I'll tell you why. When my Mother was growing up in a family of
eleven children, her father would rent out their street level basement to the voting polls. A
block away my uncle who was quite older than my Mother owned a corner saloon. Now on Election
Day my Mother said how the men in suits would pull up in their big expensive cars, and they
would descend upon my uncles corner bar. Soon after one by one drunks would come out of the
tavern wearing Republican buttons then they would go into grandpap's basement voting booth,
and vote. Not long after my Mom said, the same drunks would come pouring out of my uncles
tavern and this time they were wearing Democratic buttons, and they would go vote once or as
many times as it would take to thank the big guys in the suits for the free drinks. My Mom
said this went on all day. She said a lot dead people voted whether they knew it or not, and
that's the truth. She would follow up by saying, 'yeah a lot of politicians won on the drunk
vote'.
So Virginia some can't take the decept and lying, and with that they give up. I myself
don't feel this way, but then there are the times I can't help but think of how my dear sweet
Mother probably did have it right for the sake of living your life in the most upright and
honest way. Sadly, there is no virtue in politics, or so it seems.
Oh yeah, that uncle who owned the corner saloon, he did go into politics holding nominee
appointed positions, until he got wise and got a honest job, as he would jokingly say.
For the record my Mother did vote, but she was the lady standing in line who looked
reluctant and pissed off to be there, but never the less my Mum was a voter. Oh, the
candidate my Mother loved the most was JFK. John F Kennedy's was the only presidential
picture my Mother ever hung in our humble home.
My message here, was only meant to give some cover, and an explanation for those who shy
away from politics, and not an excuse to stay uninvolved. For even my non political Mum did
at least in the end break down, and do the right thing. We should all at least try, and keep
up on the events of our time, and vote with the best intentions we can muster up.
Okay, I'm sorry for the length of my reply, but you are always worth taking time for me to
give a reasonable answer to. I also hope I'm entertaining with these stories I seem to tell
from time to time. Take care Virginia. Joe
Tannenhouser , September 17, 2017 at 7:28 pm
Humans are approximately 90% water, give or take depending on evaporation (Age). Water
always takes the path of least resistance. Oh I wish and hope for the day when most realize
they are much more than 'just' water:)
Mulga Mumblebrain , September 16, 2017 at 5:47 pm
The fakestream media lies incessantly, and has for generations. Chomsky and Herman's
'Manufacturing Consent' outlines the propaganda role of the 'mass media', and is twenty-five
years old, in which period things have gotten MUCH worse (just look at the fate of the UK
'Guardian' for an example). Yet the fakestream presstitutes STILL have the unmitigated gall
to call others 'fake' and demand that we believe their unbelievable narratives. That's real
chutzpah.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 8:26 am
You know Mulga you are correct, many generations have listened to many, many, lies upon
their way to the voting booths. It goes without saying, how the aristocrats when they find it
necessary, as they often do find it necessary, they lie to their flock for a whole host of
reasons. Why we could pick anytime in history, and find out where lies have paved the way to
a leaders greater conquest, or a leaders said greater conquest if not met with defeat, but
never the less the public was used to propel some leaders wishes onward and upward whether
for the good or the bad.
But here we are Mulga, you and the rest of us here, straddling on the fence over what
might be right to what possibly could be wrong. Without a responsible press you and us Mulga
need to learn from each other. Like when comment posters leave links, that's always been
something good for me to follow through on.
We live in a unique time, but a time not that unique, as much as it is our time. Our
great, great, grandparents were straddling the same fence, and I'm guessing they too relied
on each other to navigate there way through the twisting maze of politics, and basically what
they all wanted, was a little peace on earth. So Mulga I also guess that you and we the
people are just carrying on a tradition that us common folk have been assigned too
continue.
Like reading your comments Mulga, good to see you here. Joe
Zhu Bajie , September 17, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Fake news has always been common. Critical thinking has never been popular because Occam's
Razor might slice your favorite story to shreds. Personally, I give full credence to few
things in life, but suspect many more, to some degree. I trust my own experiences more than
what I read in the media and try to reject conventional wisdom as much as possible.
Herman , September 16, 2017 at 9:39 am
Observing Putin's behavior, you have to be impressed with his continue willingness to
extend the olive branch and to seek a reasonable settlement of differences. His language
always leaves open the possibility of détente with the understanding that Russia is
not going to lay down to be run over. On the contrary, the language of Obama and Trump, and
their representatives is consistently take it or leave and engaging in school yard insults of
Russia, Putin, Lavrov and others. We have consistently played the bully in the school yard
encouraging others to join in the bullying. We talk about the corrosive discourse at home,
but observe the discourse in foreign affairs. Trump and his associates are guilty, but slick
talking Obama and his subordinates was often worse. .As has so often been said, we have only
two arrows in our foreign affairs quiver, war and sanctions. We lack the imagination and will
to actually engage in civil discussions with those on our enemies' list.
Parry is of course correct in his opinion of the New York Times but it doesn't stop there,
only that the New York Times undeservedly is the "newspaper of record." His citing of Orwell
is on the mark. Just turn your TV on for the news and see for yourself.
Dave P. , September 16, 2017 at 8:27 pm
Very well said, Herman. Very true.
Patricia Victour , September 16, 2017 at 9:54 am
I don't subscribe to the NYT for this reason, and it is galling to me that our local rag,
"The Santa Fe New Mexican," while featuring excellent local coverage for the most part, gets
all it's "national" news from the likes of the NYT, WaPo, and AP. These stories, much of it
"fake news" in my opinion, are offered as gospel by the "New Mexican", with no journalistic
effort to print opposing views. People I know seem so proud of themselves that they subscribe
to "The Times," and I don't even dare try to point out to them that they are being duped and
propagandized into believing the most outrageous (and dangerous) crap.
To add another dimension, these sources are so jealous of their position as the ultimate
word on what Americans are to believe, and also so worried about their waning influence, that
now RT and Sputnik, both Russia-sponsored news outlets, may be forced to register as "foreign
agents" in the U.S. I am not familiar with Sputnik, but I have been watching RT on TV for
several years and find it to be an excellent source of national and foreign news. Stories I
see first on RT are usually confirmed soon after by other reliable sources, such as this
excellent site – Consortiumnews. At no point did I feel I was being coerced by Russia
during the 2016 election – I needed no confirmation that both Trump and Clinton were
probably the worst candidates ever to run for President.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 9:31 am
You know what I find interesting is how a reporter such as Robert Parry will pinpoint his
details to a critique of say the NYT, but when or if a NYTer is to write a likewise article
of the Alternative Internet Press the NYTer will just simply critique their internet rival as
a 'conspiracy theorist' or as now as in 2017 they refer to them as 'fake news artist'. I mean
no rebuttal back referencing certain details such as what Parry mentioned, but just
rhetorical words written over tabloid written headlines finalized under the heading of 'fake
news'. This must be being taught in journalism school these days, because it's popular in the
MSM.
Just like you have never heard or read from the MSM a detailed answered rebuttal to the
pointed questions of say the '911 Truthers' or a 'JFK Assassination Researcher' a valid bona
fide answer. No, but you do hear the masters and mistresses of the corporate media world call
writers such as Parry, Roberts, and St Clair, 'fake newscasters', 'Putin Puppets', and or a
whole host of other nasty names, as they feel fit to write, but never a honest too goodness
rebuttal. Then they talk about Trump not sounding or acting presidential hmm the nerve of
these wordsmiths.
BTW, I don't care much for Trump, and I even care less for our MSM. Just wanted to get
that straight.
Nice comment Patricia. Joe
hatedbyu , September 16, 2017 at 10:57 am
let's not forget about the nytimes grossly negligent reporting on syria and libya. judith
miller? russian doping scandal. lying about the holdomor . man i could do this all day ..
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 10:12 am
You mean the on air hours of punditry explaining away their professions mistakes, or the
honest rebuttal? It's at those particular times and occurrences of ignored self reflection
our honorable (not) MSM falls back on Orwell's 1984. Like it never happened. The dog didn't
eat no home work, because there never was a dog, nor was there any homework .stupid us. Life
goes on uninterrupted and non commercial time can be filled with an update on Bill Cosby's
past alleged sexual predator attacks, and this is our professional news casting doing its
best to entertain us, not inform us god forbid, but entertain us the ignorant masses of their
workless society.
One day hatedbyu the ignorant masses may just show the corporate infotainment duchess and
dudes that they 'the people' ain't so ignorant, and things must change. Well at least that's
the dream, but it's still a work in progress, and then there's the historical seesaw.
I think it's the power of empire to expand, just like a balloon, until it reaches it's
bursting point. But just what that bursting point is, is without a doubt the most disputable
of arguments to be made. I am coming to the belief we are, as always, continually getting to
that point, and we may of course be very close to igniting that spark in the not so far off
future. I would prefer the spark to be completely financial, and dealt with accordingly, but
I'm a dreamer purest and a conspiracy theorist, so that means when the crap starts going
down, I'll be the old man on the hill lighting up a big fat doobie cue soundtrack 'Fool On
the Hill'.
Sorry just had to get carried away, but it's Sunday morning hatedbyu and I'm home alone
and nobody's trying to break in .. Good comment hatedbyu. Joe
A Compilation Not seen in Corporate Media: See Link Below:
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
US Wars and Hostile Actions: A List
By David Swanson
Stephen J. Thank you for introducing me to David Swanson. Great link.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 11:29 am
Im with you on that Bob, Stephen J providing the Swanson link should be a must read, to
keep things fair and balanced. I also do wonder if Swanson's message isn't getting out there,
and we all don't already know it? I'm a glass half full kind of guy, but what do we really
know about each other, other than what the corporate media instills on us? I wish cable news
would air a program made up of Swanson, Pilger, and Parry, for that at least could put some
well needed balance finality back, if it ever was there in the first place, back into the
public narrative .but there go I.
Good to see you Bob. Joe
Hank , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
The deep state sticks with what works: controlling the media keeps the masses ignorant and
malleable. "Remember the Maine"
Germans are bayoneting Belgium babies and "remember the Lusitania" , some evidence shows
higher ups knew the Japanese fleet was 400 miles from Hawaii, recall "Tonkin Gulf" episode,
Iran Contra , invasion of Granada, Panama, and of course 911 and war on terror, patriot act,
weapons of mass destruction, and Russia hacking the election. The masses "believe" these to
be true and react and respond accordingly.
"
"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that
matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice
or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for
lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
–Goering at the Nuremberg Trials
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 12:53 pm
Thanks Hank. Same ole same ole, eh? When will we ever learn?
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 11:32 am
"Trump might well go down in history of the President who screwed-up a historical
opportunity to really change our entire planet for the better and who, instead, by his abject
lack of courage and honor, his total lack of political and diplomatic education and by his
groveling subservience to the "swamp" he had promised to drain ended up being as pathetically
clueless as Obama was." (The Saker)
My sentiments exactly.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 11:49 am
What a glaring lie this article is, its' author being either "useful idiot" played by
Kremlin, or maybe not so much of an idiot. What are you talking about here in comments, those
who applaud this article, this bunch of lies? You live in Ukraine, you know anything about
that so-called "putch"? How dare you to insult the whole nation – Ukrainian nation?
Shame on you, people. You don't know (author of the article including) anything about Russia,
Ukraine and that bloody Putin, but you have problems with the US and its' politics. US are
your business, Ukraine definitely not. Find some other examples of NYT and USA malfeasance,
some you know something about. Stop insulting other nations.
anon , September 17, 2017 at 9:53 am
You are not from Ukraine, and you care not for Ukraine, or you would seek unity not
dominance of East over West Ukraine. Tell us about your life in Ukraine, and show us the
evidence of "that bloody Putin."
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Yellow journalism now employs "open source and social media investigation" scams foisted
by Eliot Higgins and the Bellingcat disinformation site.
Bellingcat is allied with the New York Times and the Washington Post, the two principal
mainstream media organs for "regime change" propaganda, via the First Draft Coalition
"partner network".
In a triumph of Orwellian Newspeak, this Google-sponsored "post-Truth" Propaganda 3.0
coalition declares that member organizations will "work together to tackle common issues,
including ways to streamline the verification process".
The New York Times routinely hacks up Bellingcat "reports" and pretends they're
"verification"
Malachy Browne, "Senior Story Producer" at the New York Times, cited Bellingcat to
embellish the media "story" about the Khan Shaykhun chemical incident in Idlib Syria.
Before joining the Times, Browne was an editor at "social news and marketing agency"
Storyful and at Reported. ly, the "social reporting" arm of Pierre Omidyar's First Look
Media.
Browne generously "supplemented" his "reporting" on the Khan Shaykun incident with "videos
gathered by the journalist Eliot Higgins and the social media news agency Storyful".
Browne encouraged Times readers to participate in the Bellingcat-style "verification"
charade: "Find a computer, get on Google Earth and match what you see in the video to the
streets and buildings"
Browne of Storyful and Higgins of Bellingcat are founding members of the Google-funded
"First Draft" coalition.
Browne demonstrates how the NYT and other "First Draft" coalition media outlets use video
to "strengthen" their "storytelling".
In 2016, the NYT video department hired Browne and Andrew Glazer. a senior producer on the
team that launched VICE News, to help "enhance" the "reporting" at the Times.
Browne represents the Times' effort to package its dubious "reporting" using the Storyful
marketing strategy of "building trust, loyalty, and revenue with insight and emotionally
driven content" wedded with Bellingcat style "digital forensics" scams.
In other words, we should expect the New York Times, Washington Post, BBC, UK Guardian,
and all the other "First Draft" coalition media "partners" to barrage us more Bellingcat /
Atlantic Council-style Facebook and YouTube video mashups, crazy fun with Google Earth, and
Twitter campaigns.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 1:47 pm
Thanks Abe. Sounds like these guys all read 1984, and decided it was just the thing for
2017 Amerika.
Obviously Browne is proud of the "investigation" even though merely shared a "story" fed
to him by Higgins' Bellingcat and the Atlantic Council .
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 1:58 pm
Higgins and Bellingcat receives direct funding from the Open Society Foundations (OSF)
founded by business magnate George Soros, and from Google's Digital News Initiatives
(DNI).
Google's 2017 DNI Fund Annual Report describes Higgins as "a world–leading expert in
news verification".
In their zeal to propagate the story of Higgins as a courageous former "unemployed man"
now busy independently "Codifying social conflict data", Google neglects to mention Higgins'
role as a "research fellow" for the NATO-funded Atlantic Council "regime change" think
tank.
Despite their claims of "independent journalism", Eliot Higgins and the team of
disinformation operatives at Bellingcat depend on the Atlantic Council to promote their
"online investigations".
The Atlantic Council donors list includes:
– US government and military entities: US State Department, US Air Force, US Army,
US Marines.
– The NATO military alliance
– Large corporations and major military contractors: Chevron, Google, Lockheed
Martin, Raytheon, BP, ExxonMobil, General Electric, Northrup Grumman, SAIC, ConocoPhillips,
and Dow Chemical
– Foreign governments: United Arab Emirates (UAE; which gives the think tank at
least $1 million), Kingdom of Bahrain, City of London, Ministry of Defense of Finland,
Embassy of Latvia, Estonian Ministry of Defense, Ministry of Defense of Georgia
– Other think tanks and think tankers: Center for Strategic and International
Studies (CSIS), Nicolas Veron of Bruegel (formerly at PIIE), Anne-Marie Slaughter (head of
New America Foundation), Michele Flournoy (head of Center for a New American Security),
Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings Institution.
Higgins is a Research Associate of the Department of War Studies at King's College, and
was principal co-author of the Atlantic Council "reports" on Ukraine and Syria.
Damon Wilson, Executive Vice President of Programs and Strategy at the Atlantic Council, a
co-author with Higgins of the report, effusively praised Higgins' effort to bolster
anti-Russian propaganda:
Wilson stated, "We make this case using only open source, all unclassified material. And
none of it provided by government sources. And it's thanks to works, the work that's been
pioneered by human rights defenders and our partner Eliot Higgins, uh, we've been able to use
social media forensics and geolocation to back this up." (see Atlantic Council video
presentation minutes 35:10-36:30)
However, the Atlantic Council claim that "none" of Higgins' material was provided by
government sources is an obvious lie.
Higgins' primary "pieces of evidence" are a video depicting a Buk missile launcher and a
set of geolocation coordinates that were supplied by the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine)
and the Ukrainian Ministry of Interior via the Facebook page of senior-level Ukrainian
government official Arsen Avakov, the Minister of Internal Affairs.
Higgins and the Atlantic Council are working in support of the Pentagon and Western
intelligence's "hybrid war" against Russia.
The laudatory bio of Higgins on the Kings College website specifically acknowledges his
service to the Atlantic Council:
"an award winning investigative journalist and publishes the work of an international
alliance of fellow investigators using freely available online information. He has helped
inaugurate open-source and social media investigations by trawling through vast amounts of
data uploaded constantly on to the web and social media sites. His inquiries have revealed
extraordinary findings, including linking the Buk used to down flight MH17 to Russia,
uncovering details about the August 21st 2013 Sarin attacks in Damascus, and evidencing the
involvement of the Russian military in the Ukrainian conflict. Recently he has worked with
the Atlantic Council on the report "Hiding in Plain Sight", which used open source
information to detail Russia's military involvement in the crisis in Ukraine."
While it honors Higgins' enthusiastic "trawling", King's College curiously neglects to
mention that Higgins' "findings" on the Syian sarin attacks were thoroughly debunked.
King's College also curiously neglects to mention the fact that Higgins, now listed as a
Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council's "Future Europe Initiative", was principal co-author
of the April 2016 Atlantic Council "report" on Syria.
The report's other key author was John E. Herbst, United States Ambassador to Ukraine from
September 2003 to May 2006 (the period that became known as the Orange Revolution) and
Director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center.
Other report authors include Frederic C. Hof, who served as Special Adviser on Syrian
political transition to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2012. Hof was previously the
Special Coordinator for Regional Affairs in the US Department of State's Office of the
Special Envoy for Middle East Peace, where he advised Special Envoy George Mitchel. Hof had
been a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle
East since November 2012, and assumed the position as Director in May 2016.
There is no daylight between the "online investigations" of Higgins and Bellingcat and the
"regime change" efforts of the NATO-backed Atlantic Council.
Thanks to the Atlantic Council, Soros, and Google, it's a pretty well-funded gig for fake
"citizen investigative journalist" Higgins.
Dave P. , September 17, 2017 at 12:26 am
Abe – Thanks for all the invaluable information you have been providing.
jaycee , September 16, 2017 at 1:52 pm
The meme of an aggressive assertive Russia, based on what happened in Crimea, is a
deliberate lie expressed with the utmost contempt towards principled diplomacy. The average
consumer of mainstream news is also being shamelessly and contemptuously manipulated.
First, the people of Crimea did not want to be part of Ukraine after the USSR dissolved,
and had previously expressed their opinion through referenda. The events of 2014 were part of
an obvious pattern of previously expressed opinion.
Second, around the time of the so-called Orange Revolution, NATO analysts forecast what
would probably happen should Ukraine embrace European "security architecture" (i.e. NATO),
and concluded that Russia would take steps to protect their naval facilities in Crimea. Yet,
in 2014, NATO officials would disingenuously express their utmost shock and surprise at the
event.
Third, Viktor Yushchenko, who came to power in Ukraine in 2005 through the NED-financed
Orange Revolution, consistently described his intention to join Ukraine with European
institutions, including its "security architecture" (NATO), although acknowledging that the
Ukrainian citizenry would have to be manipulated into accepting such a controversial and
adversarial position. He would downplay presumed Russian reaction to potential removal from
Crimea despite the obviousness and predictability of a serious crisis (see Sept 23, 2008
"Conversation with Viktor Yushchenko" Council On Foreign Relations). Yushchenko polled at
5.45% when he lost the Presidency in 2010, running on a platform of European integration.
Fourth, Russian officials at the highest level told their American counterparts in 2009
that any attempt to integrate Ukraine into NATO, and a corresponding threat to the Crimean
naval facilities, would result in moves similar to what would later happen in 2014. Yet the
United States, after instigating and legitimizing the Ukraine coup, would react to the
Crimean referendum as an aggressive act which represented an unexpected security crisis
requiring a reluctant but firm response of militarizing the entire region, and portraying the
Russian state to the public as a dangerous and aggressive rogue power.
The deliberate omission of relevant contextual background by politicians, military
officials, and the mainstream media demonstrates that none of these institutions can be
trusted, and it is they who represent the greatest threat to international security. Putin
has been relentlessly demonized, but it can be argued that his swift and essentially
bloodless moves in Crimea in 2014 avoided what could have been a major international crisis
on the level of the Berlin blockade in 1961. It appears, in hindsight, that such a crisis is
exactly what the NATO alliance desired all along.
Sam F , September 17, 2017 at 9:58 am
Well said.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:02 pm
Nicely put jaycee. What you wrote took me back to a time of some eight months before
Maiden Square, when my niece decided to live in Kiev. A bit of a ways away from Pittsburgh,
so I started researching Ukraine. I also discovered RT & Moonofalabama, and sites like
that.
What you wrote jaycee, in my humble opinion should be said in our MSM news. If for no
other reason but to give an alternative fair and balance to say the likes of Rachel Maddow,
or Joy Ann Reed. The way the MSM picks and chooses, and skims across important events in
Ukraine, like Odessa, are criminal if ever the Press is to be judged for crimes of war. To
the crys of a destroyed empire's vanquished population would then your small essay be heard
jaycee, and yet that's the world we live in, but at least you said it.
Thanks jaycee (that's the first time I wrote your name and the j didn't go capital what
does that mean? Who cares.)
Joe
rosemerry , September 16, 2017 at 2:04 pm
Of course the NYT liars would not bother to watch Oliver Stone's interviews with Pres.
Putin, but during them he explained at length about his cooperation during the years after
Ukraine elected a pro-Western president, managing to carry out mutual agreements and
policies, but after the new pro- Russian president was elected, the USA did not accept him
and overthrew him, which preceded the antics of Nuland et al in 2014 and the rest which
followed.
MaDarby , September 16, 2017 at 2:05 pm
It appears to me that the elites decided long ago that the best solution to overpopulation
is just to let climate change take care of three or four billion people while the Saud family
and the Cargill family live on in their sheltered paradises with every convenience AI can
provide.
It is clear these mega-rich families DO NOT CARE about society, about mass human extension
or even about nature itself. They are the pinnacle of human evolution. Psycho-pathological
loss of empathy might have been a bad evolutionary experiment.
This is derangement on a human specie scale, no leader no one in power has been willing to
do anything but exploit every opportunity to make money and increase global domination, the
great powers knew this day was coming when they made their decisions to hide it 50 years ago.
The consequences are acceptable to the decision makers.
A mass extension of organic life is taking place before our eyes, nothing can stop it,
THEY DO NOT CARE.
They sure as hell don't care if millions don't believe the Russia crap they just move
ahead as the Imperial power, might makes right. In the end it is a religious project, the
biblical slaughter of the innocents to appease a vengeful god and rid the world of evil.
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:19 pm
What you bring up MaDarby takes me towards the direction of wondering what all those other
Departments, other than State & Defense, of the Presidential Cabinet are up too? If our
news were done and somehow properly organized, in such away as to educate us peons, then
whatever the time allowed would be to broadcast and print out what each Federal Agency is up
to. Now I know a citizen can seek out this information, but why can't there be a suitable
mass media representation to reach us clunkheads like me, not you?
What should be exposed is the corporate ownership of the very agencies that were put in
place to protect the 'Commons' has been corrupted to the point of no return. This dilemma
will take a huge public referendum short of a mob revolution to change this atmosphere of
complacency. The public will get blamed, but the real blame should be put on the massive
leadership programs which were bolted down on to their citizens masses knowledge of said
events, and there in lies the total crime of deception.
MaDarby your concern for nature is where a smart person should put their number one
priority concern, no arguing there, but just a lifting word of approval of how you put it.
Joe
Donald Patterson , September 16, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Consortium has been a clear voice on the lunacy of the Russia-Gate scandal. But to paint
Yanukovych former President of the Ukraine as an injured party considering his history in
government with what appears to be large scale corruption is part of the story as well. A
treason trial started in May. More info needed on what looks like a complicated story. This
would be a good piece of investigative journalism as well.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 9:03 pm
Can you imagine what a huge can of worms would be revealed if there was a thorough
investigation on every congressperson and public official in Washington DC? It would make
Yanukovych look like a saint. And in addition, let's investigate the 10,000 richest people in
the US, including all their offshore fortunes gained by illegal means. Wouldn't it make sense
to do that? Isn't there enough evidence of probable criminal activity to open these
investigations? Where is our ethical sense when it comes to our own dirty laundry? I guess
it's easier to speculate about other's crimes than look into our own, eh?
Joe Tedesky , September 17, 2017 at 12:40 pm
The focus I get isn't so much focused on Yanukovych, even Putin wasn't all that crazy
about his style of leadership, but my focus on a viable democratically created government
doesn't necessarily start with an armed public coup. Yes, leading up to the violence,
peaceful protesters took to the streets, but as we both know this is always the case until
the baton twirling thugs come to finally ramp up the protest to a marathon of violent clashes
and whatever else gets heads busted, until we have a full fledged revolution on our hands
pass out the cookies. I mean by by-passing the voting polls, even to somehow ad hoc a
temporary government in some manner of government overthrow were done peacefully, well then
maybe I could get on board with this new Ukrainian government, but even the NYT finds it
impossible to cover up everything.
And what about the people of Donbass? Shouldn't they have a say in this new government
realignment? Ukraine has, and has always had a East meets West kind of problem. That area has
been ruled over for centuries by each other, and one another, to a point of who's who and
what's what is hard to figure out. Donbass, should in my regard be separate from the Now Kiev
government. (Be kind with your critique of me for I am just an average American telling you
what I see from here)
It's like everything else, where we should let the people of the region sit down with each
other and work it out, we instead blame it on Putin, or whoever else Putin appears to be, and
there you have it MIC spending up the ying-yang, for the lack of a better portrayal, but
still a portrayal of what ills our modern geopolitical society.
mike k , September 16, 2017 at 2:49 pm
"The best thing which could happen to this country and its people would be the collapse of
this Empire. The support, even tacit and passive, of this Empire by people like yourself only
delays this outcome and allows this abomination to to bring even more misery and pain upon
millions of innocent people, including millions of your fellow Americans. This Empire now
also threatens my country, Russia, with war and possibly nuclear war and that, in turn, means
that this Empire threatens the survival of the human species. Whether the US Empire is the
most evil one in history is debatable, but the fact that it is by far the most dangerous one
is not. Is that not a good enough reason for you to say "enough is enough"? What would it
take for you to switch sides and join the rest of mankind in what is a struggle for the
survival of our species? Or will it take a nuclear winter to open your eyes to the true
nature of the Empire you apparently are still supporting against all evidence?" (the
Saker)
Please go to the entire article on today's Saker Blog.
Voytenko , September 16, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Sick edition consortiumnews, sick readers. Elites, Deep State, Evil Empire USA Dove Putin
with olive branch Guys, why don't you watch, say for a week, Russian TV, if you have somebody
around who can translate from Russian. If you want to hear real nazi racist alt-whatever
crap, Russian TV is the place. But you'll enjoy it, most probably. Thankfully, you guys, are
obviously, minority, with all your pseudo intellectual delusions, discussions and ideas.
"Useful idiots" – that's what Lenin said about the likes of you.
Abe , September 16, 2017 at 7:00 pm
There is no reason to assume that the trollish rants of "Voytenko" are from some outraged
flag-waving "patriot" in Kiev. There are plenty of other "useful idiots" ready, willing and
able to make mischief.
For example, about a million Jews emigrated to Israel ("made Aliyah") from the post-Soviet
states during the 1990s. Some 266,300 were Ukrainian Jews. A large number of Ukrainian Jews
also emigrated to the United States during this period. For example, out of an estimated 400
thousand Russian-speaking Jews in Metro New York, the largest number (thirty-six percent)
hail from Ukraine. Needless to say, many among them are not so well disposed toward the
nations of Russia or Ukraine, and quite capable of all manner of mischief.
A particularly "useful idiot" making mischief the days is Sergey Brin of Google. Brin's
parents were graduates of Moscow State University who emigrated from the Soviet Union in 1979
when their son was five years old.
Google, the company that runs the most visited website in the world, the company that owns
YouTube, is very snugly in bed with the US military-industrial-surveillance complex.
In fact, Google was seed funded by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). The company now enjoys lavish "partnerships" with military
contractors like SAIC, Northrop Grumman and Blackbird.
Google's mission statement from the outset was "to organize the world's information and
make it universally accessible and useful".
In a 2004 letter prior to their initial public offering, Google founders Larry Page and
Sergey Brin explained their "Don't be evil" culture required objectivity and an absence of
bias: "We believe it is important for everyone to have access to the best information and
research, not only to the information people pay for you to see."
The corporate giant appears to have replaced the original motto altogether. A carefully
reworded version appears in the Google Code of Conduct: "You can make money without doing
evil".
This new gospel allows Google and its "partners" to make money promoting propaganda and
engaging in surveillance, and somehow manage to not "be evil". That's "post-truth" logic for
you.
Indeed, a very cozy cross-promotion is happening between Google and Bellingcat.
In November 2014, Google Ideas and Google For Media, partnered the George Soros-funded
Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) to host an "Investigathon" in New
York City. Google Ideas promoted Higgins' "War and Pieces: Social Media Investigations" song
and dance via their YouTube page.
Higgins constantly insists that Bellingcat "findings" are "reaffirmed" by accessing
imagery in Google Earth.
Google Earth, originally called EarthViewer 3D, was created by Keyhole, Inc, a Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) funded company acquired by Google in 2004. Google Earth uses
satellite images provided by the company Digital Globe, a supplier of the US Department of
Defense (DoD) with deep connections to both the military and intelligence communities.
The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) is both a combat support agency under
the United States Department of Defense, and an intelligence agency of the United States
Intelligence Community. Robert T. Cardillo, director of the NGA, lavishly praised Digital
Globe as "a true mission partner in every sense of the word". Examination of the Board of
Directors of Digital Globe reveals intimate connections to DoD and CIA
Google has quite the history of malicious behavior. In what became known as the "Wi-Spy"
scandal, it was revealed that Google had been collecting hundreds of gigabytes of payload
data, including personal and sensitive information. First names, email addresses, physical
addresses, and a conversation between two married individuals planning an extra-marital
affair were all cited by the FCC. In a 2012 settlement, the Federal Trade Commission
announced that Google will pay $22.5 million for overriding privacy settings in Apple's
Safari browser. Though it was the largest civil penalty the Federal Trade Commission had ever
imposed for violating one of its orders, the penalty as little more than symbolic for a
company that had $2.8 billion in earnings the previous quarter.
Google is a joint venture partner with the CIA In 2009, Google Ventures and In-Q-Tel
invested "under $10 million each" into Recorded Future shortly after the company was founded.
The company developed technology that strips information from web pages, blogs, and Twitter
accounts.
In addition to funding Bellingcat and joint ventures with the CIA, Brin's Google is
heavily invested in Crowdstrike, an American cybersecurity technology firm based in Irvine,
California.
Crowdstrike is the main "source" of the "Russians hacked the DNC" story.
Dmitri Alperovitch, co-founder and chief technology officer of CrowdStrike, is a Senior
Fellow at the Atlantic Council "regime change" think tank.
Alperovitz said that Crowdstrike has "high confidence" it was "Russian hackers".
"But we don't have hard evidence," Alperovitch admitted in a June 16, 2016 Washington Post
interview.
Allegations of Russian perfidy are routinely issued by private companies with lucrative US
Department of Defense (DoD) contracts. The companies claiming to protect the nation against
"threats" have the ability to manufacture "threats".
The US and UK possess elite cyber capabilities for both cyberspace espionage and offensive
operations.
Both the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the British Government Communications
Headquarters (GCHQ) are intelligence agencies with a long history of supporting military
operations. US military cyber operations are the responsibility of US Cyber Command, whose
commander is also the head of the NSA.
US offensive cyber operations have emphasized political coercion and opinion shaping,
shifting public perception in NATO countries as well as globally in ways favorable to the US,
and to create a sense of unease and distrust among perceived adversaries such as Russia and
China.
The Snowden revelations made it clear that US offensive cyber capabilities can and have
been directed both domestically and internationally. The notion that US and NATO cyber
operations are purely defensive is a myth.
Recent US domestic cyber operations have been used for coercive effect, creating
uncertainty and concern within the American government and population.
The perception that a foreign attacker may have infiltrated US networks, is monitoring
communications, and perhaps considering even more damaging actions, can have a disorienting
effect.
In the world of US "hybrid warfare" against Russia, offensive cyber operations work in
tandem with NATO propaganda efforts, perhaps best exemplified by the "online investigation"
antics of the Atlantic Council's Eliot Higgins and his Bellingcat disinformation site.
I live in Russia and see those shows that you speak of. The Nazi rants are from the
Ukraine folks invited on the show – you want to see Ukraine shows like the ones in RU.
– well, you won't see any Russians invited to talk -- -- NONE --
Gregory Herr , September 17, 2017 at 10:33 am
Your posts are so blatantly contrived it's almost funny. Do you write for sitcoms as
well?
mrtmbrnmn , September 16, 2017 at 4:48 pm
Is this a great country, or wot???
Stupid starts at the very top and there is no bottom to it .
The Washington Post has its own ironically self-describing slogan. Perhaps that of the NYT
these days should be, in the same vein, "The Sleep of Reason begets monsters". And who will
soon then be able to whistle in the darkness full of these things?
mike k , September 17, 2017 at 8:03 am
When looking for monsters, the WaPo should start by looking at themselves.
The chaos in Ukraine was engineered by Victoria Nuland at Hillary's request. Good that she
is not president. The Ukrainians and Russians are one and the same people, same DNA, same
religion Orthodoxy., Slavic, languages very close to each other, Cyrillic alphabet and a long
common history .
Russian_angel , September 17, 2017 at 9:43 pm
Thank you for the truth about Russia, it hurts the Russians to read about themselves in
the American newspapers a lie.
Florin , September 18, 2017 at 2:15 am
Gershman, Nuland, Pyland, Feltman . essentially ths four biggest US (quasi) diplomats,
like Volodymyr Groysman, Petro Poroshenko and perhaps 'our guy' Yats – are Jewish.
Add to this the role of Israeli 'ex' military, some hundreds, which means Mossad, and of
Jewish oligarchs in Ukraine – and consider that Jews are less than 1% of the
population.
The point is if we were free to speak plainly, the Ukraine coup looks to be one in which
American and Ukrainian Jews acted in concert to benefit Jewish power. There is more to be said on this, but this glimpse will suffice because, of course, one is
not free to speak plainly even where plain speaking is, on the face of it, encouraged.
Jamie , September 18, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Where was fake Antifa when Obama armed Nazi's in the Ukraine?
By ignoring the fascism of one political party, Antifa is actually pro-fascist. This fits
in well with their Hitler-like disdain for freedom of press, speech and assembly. And their
absolute love of violence, we also saw in the 1930s among Nazi groups
max Book is just anothe "Yascha about Russia" type, that Masha Gessen represents so vividly.
The problem with him is that time of neocon prominance is solidly in the past and now unpleasant
question about the cost from the US people of their reckless foreign policies get into some
newspapers and managines. They cost the USA tremedous anount of money (as in trillions) and those
money consititute a large portion of the national debt. Critiques so far were very weak and
partially suppressed voices, but defeat of neocon warmonger Hillary signify some break with
the past.
Notable quotes:
"... National Interest ..."
"... Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump. This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird our policies." ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. . . . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject. ..."
"... New York Observer ..."
"... National Interest ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Weekly Standard ..."
"... Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . . . Nobody is paying attention to it, " ..."
This week's primetime knife fights with Max Boot and Ralph Peters are emblematic of the
battle for the soul of the American Right.
To be sure, Carlson rejects the term
"neoconservatism,"
and implicitly, its corollary on the Democratic side, liberal internationalism. In 2016, "the reigning
Republican foreign-policy view, you can call it neoconservatism, or interventionism, or whatever you
want to call it" was rejected, he explained in a wide-ranging interview with the National Interest
Friday.
"But I don't like the term 'neoconservatism,'" he says, "because I don't even know what it means.
I think it describes the people rather than their ideas, which is what I'm interested in. And to
be perfectly honest . . . I have a lot of friends who have been described as neocons, people I really
love, sincerely. And they are offended by it. So I don't use it," Carlson said.
But Carlson's recent segments on foreign policy conducted with Lt. Col.
Ralph Peters and the prominent neoconservative journalist and author
Max Boot were acrimonious even by Carlsonian standards. In a discussion on Syria, Russia and
Iran, a visibly upset Boot accused Carlson of being "immoral" and taking foreign-policy positions
to curry favor with the White House, keep up his
ratings , and by proxy, benefit financially. Boot says that Carlson "basically parrots whatever
the pro-Trump line is that Fox viewers want to see. If Trump came out strongly against Putin tomorrow,
I imagine Tucker would echo this as faithfully as the pro-Russia arguments he echoes today." But
is this assessment fair?
Carlson's record suggests that he has been in the camp skeptical of U.S. foreign-policy intervention
for some time now and, indeed, that it predates Donald Trump's rise to power. (Carlson has commented
publicly that he was humiliated by his own public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.) According
to Carlson, "This is not about Trump. This is not about Trump. It's the one thing in American life
that has nothing to do with Trump. My views on this are totally unrelated to my views on Donald Trump.
This has been going since September 11, 2001. And it's a debate that we've never really had. And
we need to have it." He adds, "I don't think the public has ever been for the ideas that undergird
our policies."
Even if Carlson doesn't want to use the label neocon to describe some of those ideas, Boot is
not so bashful. In 2005, Boot wrote an essay called
"Neocons May Get
the Last Laugh." Carlson "has become a Trump acolyte in pursuit of ratings," says Boot, also
interviewed by the National Interest . "I bet if it were President Clinton accused of colluding
with the Russians, Tucker would be outraged and calling for impeachment if not execution. But since
it's Trump, then it's all a big joke to him," Boot says. Carlson vociferously dissents from such
assessments: "This is what dumb people do. They can't assess the merits of an argument. . . . I'm
not talking about Syria, and Russia, and Iran because of ratings. That's absurd. I can't imagine
those were anywhere near the most highly-rated segments that night. That's not why I wanted to do
it."
But Carlson insists, "I have been saying the same thing for fifteen years. Now I have a T.V. show
that people watch, so my views are better known. But it shouldn't be a surprise. I supported Trump
to the extent he articulated beliefs that I agree with. . . . And I don't support Trump to the extent
that his actions deviate from those beliefs," Carlson said. Boot on Fox said that Carlson is "too
smart" for this kind of argument. But Carlson has bucked the Trump line, notably on Trump's April
7 strikes in Syria. "When the Trump administration threw a bunch of cruise missiles into Syria for
no obvious reason, on the basis of a pretext that I
question . . . I questioned [the decision] immediately. On T.V. I was on the air when that happened.
I think, maybe seven minutes into my show. . . . I thought this was reckless."
But the fight also seems to have a personal edge. Carlson says, "Max Boot is not impressive. .
. . Max is a totally mediocre person." Carlson added that he felt guilty about not having, in his
assessment, a superior guest to Boot on the show to defend hawkishness. "I wish I had had someone
clear-thinking and smart on to represent their views. And there are a lot of them. I would love to
have that debate," Carlson told me, periodically emphasizing that he is raring to go on this subject.
Boot objects to what he sees as a cavalier attitude on the part of Carlson and others toward allegations
of Russian interference in the 2016 election, and also toward the deaths of citizens of other countries.
"You are laughing about the fact that Russia is interfering in our election process. That to me is
immoral," Boot told Carlson on his show. "This is the level of dumbness and McCarthyism in Washington
right now," says Carlson. "I think it has the virtue of making Max Boot feel like a good person.
Like he's on God's team, or something like that. But how does that serve the interest of the country?
It doesn't." Carlson says that Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails aren't nearly as important as who is going
to lead Syria, which he says Boot and others have no plan for successfully occupying. Boot, by contrast,
sees the U.S. administration as dangerously flirting with working with Russia, Iran and Syrian president
Bashar al-Assad. "For whatever reason, Trump is pro-Putin, no one knows why, and he's taken a good
chunk of the GOP along with him," Boot says.
On Fox last Wednesday, Boot reminded Carlson that he originally supported the 2003 Iraq decision.
"You supported the invasion of Iraq," Boot said, before repeating, "You supported the invasion of
Iraq." Carlson conceded that, but it seems the invasion was a bona fide turning point. It's most
important to parse whether Carlson has a long record of anti-interventionism, or if he's merely
sniffing the throne of the president (who, dubiously, may have opposed the 2003 invasion). "I
think it's a total nightmare and disaster, and I'm ashamed that I went against my own instincts in
supporting it," Carlson told the New York Observer in early 2004. "It's something I'll never
do again. Never. I got convinced by a friend of mine who's smarter than I am, and I shouldn't have
done that. . . . I'm enraged by it, actually." Carlson told the National Interest that he's
felt this way since seeing Iraq for himself in December 2003.
The evidence points heavily toward a sincere conversion on Carlson's part, or preexisting conviction
that was briefly overcome by the beat of the war drums. Carlson did work for the Weekly Standard
, perhaps the most prominent neoconservative magazine, in the 1990s and early 2000s. Carlson today
speaks respectfully of William Kristol, its founding editor, but has concluded that he is all wet.
On foreign policy, the people Carlson speaks most warmly about are genuine hard left-wingers: Glenn
Greenwald, a vociferous critic of both economic neoliberalism and neoconservatism; the anti-establishment
journalist Michael Tracey; Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of the Nation ; and her husband,
Stephen Cohen, the Russia expert and critic of U.S. foreign policy.
"The only people in American public life who are raising these questions are on the traditional
left: not lifestyle liberals, not the Williamsburg (Brooklyn) group, not liberals in D.C., not Nancy
Pelosi." He calls the expertise of establishment sources on matters like Syria "more shallow than
I even imagined." On his MSNBC show, which was canceled for poor ratings, he cavorted with noninterventionist
stalwarts such as
Ron Paul , the 2008 and 2012 antiwar GOP candidate, and Patrick J. Buchanan. "No one is smarter
than Pat Buchanan," he said
last year of the man whose ideas many say laid the groundwork for Trump's political success.
Carlson has risen to the pinnacle of cable news, succeeding Bill O'Reilly. It wasn't always clear
an antiwar take would vault someone to such prominence. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio or Mitt Romney could
be president (Boot has advised the latter two). But here he is, and it's likely no coincidence that
Carlson got a show after Trump's election, starting at the 7 p.m. slot, before swiftly moving to
the 9 p.m. slot to replace Trump antagonist Megyn Kelly, and just as quickly replacing O'Reilly at
the top slot, 8 p.m. Boot, on the other hand, declared in 2016 that the Republican Party was
dead , before it went on to hold Congress and most state houses, and of course take the presidency.
He's still at the Council on Foreign Relations and writes for the New York Times (this seems
to clearly annoy Carlson: "It tells you everything about the low standards of the American foreign-policy
establishment").
Boot wrote in 2003 in the Weekly Standard that the fall of Saddam Hussein's government
"may turn out to be one of those hinge moments in history" comparable to "events like the storming
of the Bastille or the fall of the Berlin Wall, after which everything is different." He continued,
"If the occupation goes well (admittedly a big if ), it may mark the moment when the powerful
antibiotic known as democracy was introduced into the diseased environment of the Middle East, and
began to transform the region for the better."
Though he eschews labels, Carlson sounds like a foreign-policy realist on steroids: "You can debate
what's in [the United States'] interest. That's a subjective category. But what you can't debate
is that ought to be the basic question, the first, second and third question. Does it represent our
interest? . . . I don't think that enters into the calculations of a lot of the people who make these
decisions." Carlson's interests extend beyond foreign policy, and he says "there's a massive realignment
going on ideologically that everybody is missing. It's dramatic. And everyone is missing it. . .
. Nobody is paying attention to it, "
Carlson seems intent on pressing the issue. The previous night, in his debate with Peters, the
retired lieutenant colonel said that Carlson sounded like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. intervention
against Nazi Germany before 1941. "This particular strain of Republican foreign policy has almost
no constituency. Nobody agrees with it. I mean there's not actually a large group of people outside
of New York, Washington or L.A. who think any of this is a good idea," Carlson says. "All I am is
an asker of obvious questions. And that's enough to reveal these people have no idea what they're
talking about. None."
Curt Mills is a foreign-affairs reporter at the National Interest . Follow him on Twitter:
@CurtMills .
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... "They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and conflicted people!" ..."
"... If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified information. ..."
"... Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening. ..."
"... That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG): ..."
"... Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition that Mueller fully subscribed to. ..."
"... To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919. ..."
"... Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing America. ..."
"... But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base. ..."
"... Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran. ..."
"... So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi, the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President and Russian ally. ..."
"... Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII -- there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising. ..."
"... There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case? ..."
"... In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street. ..."
"They made up a phony collusion with the Russians story, found zero proof, so now they go for obstruction of justice
on the phony story. Nice You are witnessing the single greatest WITCH HUNT in American political history – led by some very bad and
conflicted people!"
The Donald has never spoken truer words but also has never sunken lower into abject victimhood. Indeed, what is he waiting for
--
handcuffs and a perp walk?
Just to be clear, "he" doesn't need to be the passive object of a "WITCH HUNT" by "they".
If Donald Trump had any kind of presidential strategy and propensity to take command, he would have had all the intercepts
of Russian chatter gathered up weeks ago. He would then have had them declassified and made public, even as he launched a criminal
prosecution against Obama's hit squad-John Brennan, Susan Rice and Valerie Jarrett for illegally unmasking and leaking classified
information.
Such a course of action would have crushed the Russian interference hysteria in the bud. At bottom, the latter was a rearguard
invention of the Deep State and Democratic partisans. They became literally shocked and desperate for a scapegoat early last fall
by the prospect that the unthinkable was happening.
Namely, the election by the unwashed masses of an outsider and insurrectionist who could not be counted upon to serve as a "trusty"
for the status quo; and whose naïve but correct instinct to seek a rapprochement with Russia was a mortal threat to the very modus
operandi of the Imperial City.
Moreover, from the very beginning, the Russian interference narrative was rooted in nothing more than standard cyber noise from
Moscow that pales compared to what comes out of Langley (CIA) and Ft. Meade (NSA). And we do mean irrelevant noise.
After all, it didn't take a Kremlinologist from the old Soviet days to figure out that Putin did not favor Clinton, who had likened
him to Hitler. And that he welcomed Trump, who had correctly said NATO was obsolete, that he didn't want to give lethal aid to the
Ukrainians, and had expressed a desire to make a deal with Putin on Syria and numerous other areas of unnecessary confrontation.
So let's start with two obvious points. Namely, that there is no "there, there" and that the president not only has the power
to declassify secret documents at will but in this instance could do so without compromising intelligence community (IC) "sources
and methods" in the slightest.
The latter is the case because after Snowden's revelations in June 2013, the whole world was put on notice and most especially
Washington's adversaries–that it collects in raw form every single electronic digit that passes through the worldwide web and related
communications grids. It boils down to universal and omniscient SIGINT (signals intelligence), and acknowledgment of that fact by
publishing the Russia-Trump intercepts would provide new knowledge to exactly no one.
Nor would it jeopardize the lives of any American spy or agent (HUMINT); it would just document the unconstitutional interference
in the election process that had been committed by the US intelligence agencies and political operatives in the Obama White House.
Yes, we can hear the boxes on the CNN screen harrumphing and spinning noisily that declassifying the "evidence" would amount to
obstruction of justice! That is to say, since Trump's "crime" is axiomatic (i.e. his occupancy of the Oval Office), anything that
gets in the way of his conviction and removal therefrom amounts to "obstruction".
Given that he is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/ mainstream media prosecution, the Donald has no chance of survival short
of an aggressive offensive of the type described above.
But that's not happening because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous
coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.
That became more than evident-and more than pathetic, too-when earlier this morning he tweeted out an attack on his own Deputy
Attorney General, Rod Rosenstein. At least Nixon fired Elliot Richardson (his Attorney General) and Bill Ruckelshaus (Deputy AG):
"I am being investigated for firing the FBI Director by the man who told me to fire the FBI Director! Witch Hunt"
So alone with his Twitter account, clueless advisors and pulsating rage, the Donald is instead laying the groundwork for his own
demise. Were this not the White House, it would normally be the point at which they send in the men in white coats with a straight
jacket.
Indeed, that's essentially what Donald's ostensible GOP allies on the Hill are actually doing. RussiaGate is self-evidently a
witch-hunt like few others in American political history. Yet as the mainstream cameras and microphones were thrust at one Congressional
Republican after another yesterday afternoon following Donald's outburst quoted above, there was nary an echo of the agreement.
Even Senator John Thune, an ostensible Swamp-hating conservative, had nothing but praise for Special Counsel Robert Mueller while
affecting an earnest confidence that he would fairly and thoroughly get to the bottom of the matter.
No he won't!
Mueller is a card-carrying apparatchik of the Deep State, who was there at the founding of today's surveillance monster as Director
of the FBI in the aftermath of 9/11. Since the whole $75 billion apparatus that eventually emerged was based on a vastly exaggerated
threat of global Islamic terrorism that doesn't exist, Russia had to be demonized into order to keep the game going-a transition
that Mueller fully subscribed to.
So he will "find" extensive Russian interference in the 2016 election and bring the hammer down on the Donald for seeking to prevent
it from coming to light. The clock is now ticking and his investigatory team is being loaded up with prosecutorial killers who have
proven records of thuggery when it comes to finding crimes that make for the fame and fortune of the prosecutors-even if the crime
itself never happened.
To wit, Mueller's #1 hire was the despicable Andrew Weissmann. The latter had led the fraud section of the department's Criminal
Division, served as general counsel to the F.B.I. when Mueller was its director, and, more importantly, was the driving force behind
the Enron task force the most egregious exercise in prosecutorial abuse and thuggery since the Palmer raids of 1919.
Meanwhile, as we said the other day, the GOP elders especially could also not be clearer about what is coming down the pike.
They are not defending Trump with even a modicum of the vigor and resolve that we recall from the early days of Tricky Dick's
ordeal, and, of course, he didn't survive anyway. Instead, it's as if Ryan, McConnell, et al. have offered to hold his coat, while
the Donald pummels himself with a 140-character Twitter Knife that is visible to the entire world.
So there should be no doubt. A Great Big Coup is on the way. But here's the irony of the matter.
Exactly four years ago in June 2013, no one was seriously demonizing Putin or Russia. In fact, the slicksters of CNN were still
snickering about Mitt Romney's silly claim during the 2012 election campaign that Russia was the greatest security threat facing
America.
But then came the Syrian jihadist false flag chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus in August 2013 and the US intelligence
community's flagrant lie that it had proof the villain was Bashar Assad. To the contrary, it subsequently became evident that the primitive rockets that had carried the deadly sarin gas, which killed
upwards of 1500 innocent civilians, could not have been fired from regime-held territory; the rockets examined by UN investigators
had a range of only a few kilometers, not the 15-20 kilometers from the nearest Syrian base.
In any event, President Obama choose to ignore his own red line and called off the bombers. That, in turn, paved the way for Vladimir
Putin to step into the breach and persuade Assad to give up all of his chemical weapons commitment he fully complied with over the
course of the next year.
Needless to say, in the eyes of the neocon War Party, this constructive act of international statesmanship by Putin was the unforgivable
sin. It thwarted the next target on their regime change agenda-removal of the Assad government in Syria as a step toward an ultimate
attack on its ally, the Shiite regime of Iran.
So it did not take long for the Deep State to retaliate. While Putin was basking in the glory of the 2014 winter Olympics at Sochi,
the entire apparatus of Imperial Washington – the CIA, the National Endowment for Democracy, the State Department and a long string
of Washington funded NGOs - was on the ground in Kiev midwifing the putsch that overthrew Ukraine's constitutionally elected President
and Russian ally.
From there, the Ukrainian civil war and partition of Crimea inexorably followed, as did the escalating campaign against Russia
and its leader.
Indeed, given the Stalin-era animosity between the Russian-speaking Donbas and Crimean regions of the confected state of Ukraine
and the virulent anti-Russian populations elsewhere – including descendants of the Nazi collaborators with Hitler during WWII --
there could have been no other outcome. And that was especially the case after Washington designated "Yats", a neo-Nazi sympathizer
named Arseniy Yatseniuk, as the guy to takeover the Ukrainian government at the time of the Kiev uprising.
So as it turned out, the War Party could not have planned a more fortuitous outcome -- especially after Russia moved to protect
its legitimate interests in its own backyard resulting from the Washington-instigated civil war in Ukraine, including protecting
its 200-year old Naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. The War Party simply characterized these actions falsely as acts of aggression
by a potential sacker of the peace and territorial integrity of its European neighbors.
There is nothing like a demonized enemy to keep the $700 billion national security budget flowing and the hideous Warfare State
opulence of the Imperial City intact. So why not throw in an allegedly "stolen" US election to garnish the case?
In a word, the Little Putsch in Kiev is now begetting a Great Big Coup in the Imperial City. This is a history-shattering development, but don't tell the boys and girls and robo-machines on Wall Street.
Pathetically, they still think its game on.
David Alan Stockman is an author, former businessman and U.S. politician who served as a Republican U.S. Representative from
the state of Michigan and as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Information
Clearing House.
"... Until elites stand down and stop the brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate the whole of the Neoliberal Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently militarized "order" to entirely suppress it. ..."
"... Mes petits sous, mon petit cri de coeur. ..."
"... But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points, too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm with it.) ..."
"... American Psycho ..."
"... The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers or, even more grandly, what success means in America. ..."
"... unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do. ..."
"... our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population of individualists who can't see the big picture. ..."
"... That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel that our governments are working for us. ..."
"... Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional, to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal. ..."
"... "Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing, just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability. ..."
"... Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best that can be achieved? ..."
"... JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The "remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which has never existed. ..."
"... Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit. Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets. ..."
"... Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile, Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away. ..."
"... My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. ..."
"... The class war continues, and the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity? No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of the Obama administration and the Trump administration. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens if any, are kept meticulously clean. ..."
"... The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the public space/environment as a shared, common good. ..."
"... There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game for commercial exploitation. ..."
"... The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. ..."
"... "Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief." ..."
"... "Four Futures" ..."
"... Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first. "Greed is good". ..."
"... Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel. In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class, and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster. ..."
Yves here. I have been saying for some years that I did not think we would see a revolution, but
more and more individuals acting out violently. That's partly the result of how community and social
bonds have weakened as a result of neoliberalism but also because the officialdom has effective ways
of blocking protests. With the overwhelming majority of people using smartphones, they are constantly
surveilled. And the coordinated 17-city paramilitary crackdown on Occupy Wall Street shows how the
officialdom moved against non-violent protests. Police have gotten only more military surplus toys
since then, and crowd-dispersion technology like sound cannons only continues to advance. The only
way a rebellion could succeed would be for it to be truly mass scale (as in over a million people
in a single city) or by targeting crucial infrastructure.
By Gaius Publius
, a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States and frequent contributor to
DownWithTyranny, digby, Truthout, and Naked Capitalism. Follow him on Twitter
@Gaius_Publius ,
Tumblr and
Facebook . GP article archive
here . Originally published at
DownWithTyranny
"[T]he super-rich are absconding with our wealth, and the plague of inequality continues
to grow. An
analysis of
2016 data found that the poorest five deciles of the world population own about $410 billion
in total wealth. As of
June 8,
2017 , the world's richest five men owned over $400 billion in wealth. Thus, on average,
each man owns nearly as much as 750 million people."
-Paul Buchheit,
Alternet
"Congressman Steve Scalise, Three Others Shot at Alexandria, Virginia, Baseball Field"
-NBC News,
June 14, 2017
"4 killed, including gunman, in shooting at UPS facility in San Francisco"
-ABC7News,
June 14, 2017
"Seriously? Another multiple shooting? So many guns. So many nut-bars. So many angry
nut-bars with guns."
-MarianneW via
Twitter
"We live in a world where "multiple dead" in San Francisco shooting can't cut through
the news of another shooting in the same day."
-SamT via
Twitter
"If the rich are determined to extract the last drop of blood, expect the victims to
put up a fuss. And don't expect that fuss to be pretty. I'm not arguing for social war; I'm
arguing for justice and peace."
-
Yours truly
When the social contract breaks from above, it breaks from below as well.
Until elites stand down and stop the
brutal squeeze , expect more after painful more of this. It's what happens when societies come
apart. Unless elites (of both parties) stop the push for "profit before people," policies that dominate
the whole of the
Neoliberal
Era , there are only two outcomes for a nation on this track, each worse than the other. There
are only two directions for an increasingly chaotic state to go, chaotic collapse or sufficiently
militarized "order" to entirely suppress it.
As with the climate, I'm concerned about the short term for sure - the storm that kills this year,
the hurricane that kills the next - but I'm also concerned about the longer term as well. If the
beatings
from "our betters" won't stop until our acceptance of their "serve the rich" policies improves,
the beatings will never stop, and both sides will take up the cudgel.
Then where will we be?
America's Most Abundant Manufactured Product May Be Pain
I look out the window and see more and more homeless people, noticeably more than last year and
the year before. And they're noticeably scruffier, less "kemp," if that makes sense to you (it does
if you live, as I do, in a community that includes a number of them as neighbors).
The squeeze hasn't let up, and those getting squeezed out of society have nowhere to drain to
but down - physically, economically, emotionally. The
Case-Deaton study speaks volumes to this point. The less fortunate economically are already dying
of drugs and despair. If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just
remotely maybe possible they'll also aim their anger out as well?
The pot isn't boiling yet - these shootings are random, individualized - but they seem to be piling
on top of each other. A hard-boiling, over-flowing pot may not be far behind. That's concerning as
well, much moreso than even the random horrid events we recoil at today.
Many More Ways Than One to Be a Denier
My comparison above to the climate problem was deliberate. It's not just the occasional storms
we see that matter. It's also that, seen over time, those storms are increasing, marking a trend
that matters even more. As with climate, the whole can indeed be greater than its parts. There's
more than one way in which to be a denier of change.
These are not just metaphors. The country is already in a
pre-revolutionary state ; that's one huge reason people chose Trump over Clinton, and would have
chosen Sanders over Trump. The Big Squeeze has to stop, or this will be just the beginning of a long
and painful path. We're on a track that nations we have watched - tightly "ordered" states, highly
chaotic ones - have trod already. While we look at them in pity, their example stares back at us.
But the elite aren't going to stand down, whatever that might mean. The elite aren't really
the "elite", they are owners and controllers of certain flows of economic activity. We need to
call it what it is and actively organize against it. Publius's essay seems too passive at points,
too passive voice. (Yes, it's a cry from the heart in a prophetic mode, and on that level, I'm
with it.)
"If people are killing themselves in increasing numbers, isn't it just remotely maybe possible
they'll also aim their anger out as well?"
Not necessarily. What Lacan called the "Big Other" is quite powerful. We internalize a lot
of socio-economic junk from our cultural inheritance, especially as it's been configured over
the last 40 years - our values, our body images, our criteria for judgment, our sense of what
material well-being consists, etc. Ellis's American Psycho is the great satire of our
time, and this time is not quite over yet. Dismemberment reigns.
The college students I deal with have internalized a lot of this. In their minds, TINA
is reality. Everything balances for the individual on a razor's edge of failure of will or knowledge
or hacktivity. It's all personal, almost never collective - it's a failure toward parents or peers
or, even more grandly, what success means in America.
The idea that agency could be a collective action of a union for a strike isn't even on the
horizon. And at the same time, these same students don't bat an eye at socialism. They're willing
to listen.
But unions don't matter in our TINA. Corporations do.
Most of the elite do not understand the money system. They do not understand how different
sectors have benefitted from policies and/or subsidies that increased the money flows into these.
So they think they deserve their money more than those who toiled in sectors with less support.
Furthermore, our system promotes specialists and disregards generalists this leads to a population
of individualists who can't see the big picture.
Thank you Gaius, a thoughtful post. That social contract is hard to pin down and define – probably
has different meanings to all of us, but you are right, it is breaking down. We no longer feel
that our governments are working for us.
Of tangential interest, Turnbull has just announced another gun amnesty targeting guns that
people no longer need and a tightening of some of the ownership laws.
One problem is the use of the term "social contract", implying that there is some kind of agreement
( = consensus) on what that is. I don't remember signing any "contract".
I fear for my friends, I fear for my family.
They do not know how ravenous the hounds behind nor ahead are. For myself? I imagine myself the same in a Mad Max world. It will be more clear, and perception shattering, to most whose lives allow the ignoring of
gradual chokeholds, be them political or economic, but those of us who struggle daily, yearly,
decadely with both, will only say Welcome to the party, pals.
Increasing population, decreasing resources, increasingly expensive remaining resources on
a per unit basis, unresolved trashing of the environment and an political economy that forces
people to do more with less all the time (productivity improvement is mandatory, not optional,
to handle the exponential function) much pain will happen even if everyone is equal.
Each person
does what is right in their own eyes, but the net effect is impoverishment and destruction. Life
is unfair, indeed. A social contract is a mutual suicide pact, whether you renegotiate it or not.
This is Fight Club. The first rule of Fight Club, is we don't speak of Fight Club. Go to the gym,
toughen up, while you still can.
"Social contract:" nice Enlightment construct, out of University by City. Not a real thing,
just a very incomplete shorthand to attempt to fiddle the masses and give a name to meta-livability.
Always with the "contract" meme, as if there are no more durable and substantive notions of
how humans in small and large groups might organize and interact Or maybe the notion is the best
that can be achieved? Recalling that as my Contracts professor in law school emphasized over and
over, in "contracts" there are no rights in the absence of effective remedies. It being a Boston
law school, the notion was echoed in Torts, and in Commercial Paper and Sales and, tellingly,
in Constitutional Law and Federal Jurisdiction, and even in Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure.
No remedy, no right. What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social
contract," the "have-naught" halves?
When honest "remedies under law" become nugatory, there's always the recourse to direct action
of course with zero guarantee of redress
"What remedies are there in "the system," for the "other halves" of the "social contract,"
the "have-naught" halves?"
Ah yes the ultimate remedy is outright rebellion against the highest authorities .with as you
say, " zero guarantee of redress."
But, history teaches us that that path will be taken ..the streets. It doesn't (didn't) take a
genius to see what was coming back in the late 1960's on .regarding the beginnings of the revolt(s)
by big money against organized labor. Having been very involved in observing, studying and actually
active in certain groups back then, the US was acting out in other countries particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere, against any social progression, repressing, arresting (thru its surrogates)
torturing, killing any individuals or groups that opposed that infamous theory of "free market
capitalism". It had a very definite "creep" effect, northwards to the mainstream US because so
many of our major corporations were deeply involved with our covert intelligence operatives and
objectives (along with USAID and NED). I used to tell my friends about what was happening and
they would look at me as if I was a lunatic. The agency for change would be "organized labor",
but now, today that agency has been trashed enough where so many of the young have no clue as
to what it all means. The ultimate agenda along with "globalization" is the complete repression
of any opposition to the " spread of money markets" around the world". The US intends to lead;
whether the US citizenry does is another matter. Hence the streets.
JTMcFee, you have provided the most important aspect to this mirage of 'social contract'. The
"remedies" clearly available to lawless legislation rest outside the realm of a contract which
has never existed.
The Social Contract, ephemeral, reflects perfectly what contracts have become. Older rulings
frequently labeled clauses unconscionable - a tacit recognition that so few of the darn things
are actually agreed upon. Rather, a party with resources, options and security imposes the agreement
on a party in some form of crisis (nowadays the ever present crisis of paycheck to paycheck living
– or worse). Never mind informational asymmetries, necessity drives us into crappy rental agreements
and debt promises with eyes wide open. And suddenly we're all agents of the state.
Unconscionable clauses are now separately initialed in an "I dare you to sue me" shaming gambit.
Meanwhile the mythical Social Contract has been atomized into 7 1/2 billion personal contracts
with unstated, shifting remedies wholly tied to the depths of pockets.
Solidarity, of course. Hard when Identity politics lubricate a labor market that insists on
specialization, and talented children of privilege somehow manage to navigate the new entrepreneurism
while talented others look on in frustration. The resistance insists on being leaderless (fueled
in part IMHO by the uncomfortable fact that effective leaders are regularly killed or co-opted).
And the overriding message of resistance is negative: "Stop it!"
But that's where we are. Again, just my opinion: but the pivotal step away from the jackpot
is to convince or coerce our wealthiest not to cash in. Stop making and saving so much stinking
money, y'all.
and there's the Karma bec. even now we see a private banking system synthesizing an economy
to maintain asset values and profits and they have the nerve to blame it on social spending.
I think Giaus's term 'Denier' is perfect for all those vested practitioners of profit-capitalism
at any cost. They've already failed miserably. For the most part they're just too proud to admit
it and, naturally, they wanna hang on to "their" money. I don't think it will take a revolution
– in fact it would be better if no chaos ensued – just let these arrogant goofballs stew in their
own juice a while longer. They are killing themselves.
When I hear so much impatient and irritable complaint, so much readiness to replace what we
have by guardians for us all, those supermen, evoked somewhere from the clouds, whom none have
seen and none are ready to name, I lapse into a dream, as it were. I see children playing on the
grass; their voices are shrill and discordant as children's are; they are restive and quarrelsome;
they cannot agree to any common plan; their play annoys them; it goes poorly. And one says, let
us make Jack the master; Jack knows all about it; Jack will tell us what each is to do and we
shall all agree. But Jack is like all the rest; Helen is discontented with her part and Henry
with his, and soon they fall again into their old state. No, the children must learn to play by
themselves; there is no Jack the master. And in the end slowly and with infinite disappointment
they do learn a little; they learn to forbear, to reckon with another, accept a little where they
wanted much, to live and let live, to yield when they must yield; perhaps, we may hope, not to
take all they can. But the condition is that they shall be willing at least to listen to one another,
to get the habit of pooling their wishes. Somehow or other they must do this, if the play is to
go on; maybe it will not, but there is no Jack, in or out of the box, who can come to straighten
the game. -Learned Hand
Here in oh-so-individualistic Chicago, I have been noting the fraying for some time: It isn't
just the massacres in the highly segregated black neighborhoods, some of which are now in terminal
decline as the inhabitants, justifiably, flee. The typical Chicagoan wanders the streets connected
to a phone, so as to avoid eye contact, all the while dressed in what look like castoffs. Meanwhile,
Midwesterners, who tend to be heavy, are advertisements for the obesity epidemic: Yet obesity
has a metaphorical meaning as the coat of lipids that a person wears to keep the world away.
My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash: Think
Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest environmentalists.
Meanwhile, I just got a message from my car-share service: They are cutting back on the number
of cars on offer. Too much vandalism.
Are these things caused by pressure from above? Yes, in part: The class war continues, and
the upper class has won. As commenter relstprof notes, any kind of concerted action is now nearly
impossible. Instead of the term "social contract," I might substitute "solidarity." Is there solidarity?
No, solidarity was destroyed as a policy of the Reagan administration, as well as by fantasies
that Americans are individualistic, and here we are, 40 years later, dealing with the rubble of
the Obama administration and the Trump administration.
DJG: My middle / upper-middle neighborhood is covered with a layer of upper-middle trash:
Think Starbucks cups and artisanal beer bottles. Some trash is carefully posed: Cups with straws
on windsills, awaiting the Paris Agreement Pixie, who will clean up after these oh-so-earnest
environmentalists.
Yes, the trash bit is hard to understand. What does it stand for? Does it mean, We can infinitely
disregard our surroundings by throwing away plastic, cardboard, metal and paper and nothing will
happen? Does it mean, There is more where that came from! Does it mean, I don't care a fig for
the earth? Does it mean, Human beings are stupid and, unlike pigs, mess up their immediate environment
and move on? Does it mean, Nothing–that we are just nihilists waiting to die? I am so fed up with
the garbage strewn on the roads and in the woods where I live; I used to pick it up and could
collect as much as 9 garbage bags of junk in 9 days during a 4 kilometer walk. I don't pick up
any more because I am 77 and cannot keep doing it.
However, I am certain that strewn garbage will surely be the last national flag waving in the
breeze as the anthem plays junk music and we all succumb to our terrible future.
Related to this, I thought one day of who probably NEVER gets any appreciation but strives
to make things nicer, anyone planning or planting the highway strips (government workers maybe
although it could be convicts also unfortunately, I'm not sure). Yes highways are ugly, yes they
will destroy the world, but some of the planting strips are sometimes genuinely nice. So they
add some niceness to the ugly and people still litter of course.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population views the
public space/environment as a shared, common good. Thus, streets, parks and public space might be soiled by litter that nobody cares to put away
in trash bins properly, while simultaneously the interior of houses/apartments, and attached gardens
if any, are kept meticulously clean.
Basically, the world people care about stops outside their dwellings, because they do not feel
it is "theirs" or that they participate in its possession in a genuine way. It belongs to the
"town administration", or to a "private corporation", or to the "government" - and if they feel
they have no say in the ownership, management, regulation and benefits thereof, why should they
care? Let the town administration/government/corporation do the clean-up - we already pay enough
taxes/fees/tolls, and "they" are always putting up more restrictions on how to use everything,
so
In conclusion: the phenomenon of litter/trash is another manifestation of a fraying social
contract.
The trash bit has been linked in other countries to how much the general population
views the public space/environment as a shared, common good.
There *is* no public space anymore. Every public good, every public space is now fair game
for commercial exploitation.
I live in NYC, and just yesterday as I attempted to refill my MetroCard, the machine told me
it was expired and I had to replace it. The replacement card doesn't look at all like a MetroCard
with the familiar yellow and black graphic saying "MetroCard". Instead? It's an ad. For a fucking
insurance company. And so now, every single time that I go somewhere on the subway, I have to
see an ad from Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
The importance of the end of solidarity – that is, of the almost-murderous impulses by the upper
classes to destroy any kind of solidarity. From Yves's posting of Yanis Varoufakis's analysis
of the newest terms of the continuing destruction of Greece:
With regard to labour market reforms, the Eurogroup welcomes the adopted legislation safeguarding
previous reforms on collective bargaining and bringing collective dismissals in line with best
EU practices.
I see! "Safeguarding previous reforms on collective bargaining" refers, of course, to the 2012
removal of the right to collective bargaining and the end to trades union representation for each
and every Greek worker. Our government was elected in January 2015 with an express mandate to
restore these workers' and trades unions' rights. Prime Minister Tsipras has repeatedly pledged
to do so, even after our falling out and my resignation in July 2015. Now, yesterday, his government
consented to this piece of Eurogroup triumphalism that celebrates the 'safeguarding' of the 2012
'reforms'. In short, the SYRIZA government has capitulated on this issue too: Workers' and trades'
unions' rights will not be restored. And, as if that were not bad enough, "collective dismissals"
will be brought "in line with best EU practices". What this means is that the last remaining constraints
on corporations, i.e. a restriction on what percentage of workers can be fired each month, is
relaxed. Make no mistake: The Eurogroup is telling us that, now that employers are guaranteed
the absence of trades unions, and the right to fire more workers, growth enhancement will follow
suit! Let's not hold our breath!
The so-called "Elites"? Stand down? Right.
Every year I look up the cardinal topics discussed at the larger economic forums and conferences
(mainly Davos and G8), and some variation of "The consequences of rising inequality" is a recurring
one. Despite this, nothing ever comes out if them. I imagine they go something like this:
"-Oh hi Mark. Racism is bad.
-Definitely. So is inequality, right, Tim?
-Sure, wish we could do something about it. HEY GUYS, HAVE YOU HEARD ABOUT MY NEW SCHEME TO BUY
OUT NEW AND UPCOMING COMPANIES TO MAKE MORE MONEY?"
A wet dream come true, both for an AnCap and a communist conspiracy theorist. I'm by no means
either. However, I think capitalism has already failed and can't go on for much longer. Conditions
will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement or relief.
"Conditions will only deteriorate for anyone not in the "1%", with no sight of improvement
or relief." Frase's Quadrant Four. Hierarchy + Scarcity = Exterminism (From "Four Futures" )
Reminds me of that one quip I saw from a guy who, why he always had to have two pigs to eat
up his garbage, said that if he had only one pig, it will eat only when it wants to, but if there
were two pigs, each one would eat so the other pig won't get to it first. Our current economic system in a nutshell – pigs eating crap so deny it to others first.
"Greed is good".
Don't know that the two avenues Gaius mentioned are the only two roads our society can travel.
In support of this view, I recall a visit to a secondary city in Russia for a few weeks in the
early 1990s after the collapse of the USSR. Those were difficult times economically and psychologically
for ordinary citizens of that country. Alcoholism was rampant, emotional illness and suicide rates
among men of working age were high, mortality rates generally were rising sharply, and birth rates
were falling. Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful
and educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks. There was also adequate food, and critical
public infrastructure was maintained, keeping in mind this was shortly after the Chernobyl disaster.
Here in the US the New Deal and other legislation helped preserve social order in the 1930s.
Yves also raises an important point in her preface that can provide support for the center by
those who are able to do so under the current economic framework. That glue is to participate
in one's community; whether it is volunteering at a school, the local food bank, community-oriented
social clubs, or in a multitude of other ways; regardless of whether your community is a small
town or a large city.
" Yet the glue of common culture, sovereign currency, language, community, and thoughtful and
educated citizens held despite corrupt political leadership, the rise of an oligarchic class,
and the related emergence of organized criminal networks."
None of which applies to the Imperium, of course. There's glue, all right, but it's the kind
that is used for flooring in Roach Motels (TM), and those horrific rat and mouse traps that stick
the rodent to a large rectangle of plastic, where they die eventually of exhaustion and dehydration
and starvation The rat can gnaw off a leg that's glued down, but then it tips over and gets glued
down by the chest or face or butt
I have to note that several people I know are fastidious about picking up trash other people
"throw away." I do it, when I'm up to bending over. I used to be rude about it - one young attractive
woman dumped a McDonald's bag and her ashtray out the window of her car at one of our very long
Florida traffic lights. I got out of my car, used the mouth of the McDonald's bag to scoop up
most of the lipsticked butts, and threw them back into her car. Speaking of mouths, that woman
with the artfully painted lips sure had one on her
"... Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government, treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all. ..."
"... So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1? His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the 2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect. ..."
"... Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey, Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out." But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why? ..."
"... It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward." ..."
"... Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as possible on the target of a political smear campaign. ..."
"... Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that? ..."
"... In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director", ACLU) ..."
"... Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including) torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and honor? ..."
"... In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about that for a minute. Here's what he said: ..."
"... because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel ..."
"... Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old' Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor. Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it took. ..."
"... In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House. ..."
"... Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly murky area of the law and difficult to prove. ..."
"... lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition . He can be reached at [email protected] . ..."
"... Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on. ..."
"... But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono? ..."
"... Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him. ..."
"... The endless investigations can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven, too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail. ..."
"... It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia. It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign will of the American People. ..."
"... If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their lies have created. ..."
"... Presumably Comey was deeply involved in Obama's illegal spying. ..."
"... Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so.. ..."
"... Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares. ..."
"... A little discouraged. Don' t think the swamp is drainable. Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances. Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about swamp. Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done. Trump underestimated deep state. They ARE in charge. What will the people do ? Become more apathetic? ..."
"... Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging. Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens. Can't go on as is. The death by a thousand cuts. ..."
"... In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey, Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so, and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake. ..."
"... The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the electorate position? ..."
"... I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion or blackmail scenario. ..."
"... Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt. Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress. Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or Washington establishment for protection." He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI. etc etc. Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin. ..."
"... Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree. ..."
"... I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade" deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia, implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State require to set a soft coup into motion? ..."
"... Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone under the guise of openness. ..."
"... Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely political. ..."
"... JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K mark. ..."
"The Democrats are not fighting Trump over his assault on health care, his attacks on immigrants,
his militaristic bullying around the world, or even his status as a minority president who can
claim no mandate after losing the popular vote. Instead, they have chosen to attack Trump, the
most right-wing president in US history, from the right, denouncing him as insufficiently committed
to a military confrontation with Russia."
- Patrick Martin, "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming", World Socialist Web Site
Donald Trump is not the target of an FBI investigation. Donald Trump has never been the target of an FBI investigation. The FBI is not investigating Trump for collusion, improper relations with a foreign government,
treason or any of the other ridiculous things he's been falsely accused of in the fake media. In
fact, the FBI is not investigating him at all.
Last week, former FBI Director James Comey admitted publicly what he has known all along: that
Trump was not a suspect in the Russia hacking probe and never has been. Here's the story from Politico:
"Comey assured Trump he wasn't under investigation during their first meeting. He said he discussed
with FBI leadership before his meeting with the president-elect whether to disclose that he wasn't
personally under investigation. "That was true; we did not have an open counter-intelligence case
on him," Comey said." (Politico)
So, there was no counter-intelligence case on Trump? There was no investigation of collusion with
Russia? But how can that be, after all, Trump has been hectored and harassed by the media from Day 1?
His appointments have been blocked, his political agenda has been derailed, and the results of the
2016 elections have been effectively repealed due to the relentless attacks of the media, political
elites and high-ranking leaders in the Intelligence Community. Now Comey admits that Trump is not
guilty of anything, he's not even a suspect.
What's going on here? Why didn't Comey clear the air earlier so the American people would know
that their president wasn't in bed with a foreign power? Why did he allow this farce to continue
when he knew there was no substance to the claims? Did he enjoy seeing Trump twisting in the wind
or was there some more sinister "political" motive behind his omission?
Trump repeatedly asked Comey to announce that he wasn't under investigation. According to Comey,
Trump "emphasized the problems this was causing him" and (Trump) said "We need to get that fact out."
But Comey repeatedly refused to publicly acknowledge the truth. Why?
Comey never answered that question to Trump, but he did explain his reasoning to the Senate Intelligence
Committee last week. He said he didn't want to announce that Trump was not part of the Bureau's Russia
probe because "it would create a duty to correct, should that change."
A "duty to correct"? Are you kidding me? What kind of bullshit answer is that? How many hours
of legal brainstorming did it take to come up with that lame-ass excuse?
Let's state the obvious: Comey wanted to maintain the cloud of suspicion that was hanging over
Trump because it helped to feed the perception that Trump was a traitor who collaborated with Russia
to win the election. By remaining silent, Comey helped to fuel the public hysteria and reinforce
the belief that Trump was guilty of criminal wrongdoing. That is why Comey never spoke out before,
it's because his silence was already achieving the result he sought which was to inflict as much
damage as possible on Trump and his administration.
Did you know that Comey was spying on Trump from Day 1?
It's true, he admitted it himself. Following his first meeting with Trump on January 6, he started
recording contents of his private conversations with the president-elect on a secure FBI laptop in
his car outside Trump Tower. He didn't even wait until he got back to the office, he did it in the
goddamn parking lot. That's what you call "eager". In his testimony he admitted that he kept notes
of his private meetings with Trump "from that point forward."
Does that sound like the normal activities of dedicated public servant acting in behalf of the
elected government or does it sound like someone who's on an assignment to dig up as much dirt as
possible on the target of a political smear campaign.
Isn't that what Comey was really up to?
Comey is a man with zero integrity. Did you know that?
"There's one very big problem with describing Comey as some sort of civil libertarian: some
facts suggest otherwise. While Comey deserves credit for stopping an illegal spying program in
dramatic fashion, he also approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration
during his time as deputy attorney general. Those included torture, warrantless wiretapping, and
indefinite detention.
On 30 December 2004, a memo addressed to James Comey was issued that superseded the infamous
memo that defined torture as pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure". The memo to Comey seemed to renounce torture but did nothing of
the sort. The key sentence in the opinion is tucked away in footnote 8. It concludes that the
new Comey memo did not change the authorizations of interrogation tactics in any earlier memos.
In short, the memo Comey that approved gave a thumbs-up on waterboarding, wall slams, and other
forms of torture – all violations of domestic and international law. Then, there's warrantless
wiretapping. ."("Let's Check James Comey's Bush Years Record Before He Becomes FBI Director",
ACLU)
Repeat: "He approved or defended some of the worst abuses of the Bush administration (including)
torture, warrantless wiretapping, and indefinite detention." How does that square with the media's portrayal of Comey as a man of unshakable integrity and
honor?
It doesn't square at all, does it? The media is obviously lying. Now ask yourself this: Can a man who rubber-stamped waterboarding be trusted? No, he can't be trusted because he's already proved himself to be inherently immoral.
Would a man like Comey agree to use his position and authority to try to "undo" the damage he
did prior to the election when he announced the FBI was reopening its investigation of Hillary Clinton?
In other words, was Comey being blackmailed to gather illicit material on Trump?
I think it's very likely, although entirely unprovable. Even so, Comey has been way too eager
to frame Trump for things for which he is not guilty. Why has he been so eager? Was he really just
protecting himself as he says or was he gathering information to build a legal case against Trump?
In my mind, Comey tipped his hand when he said that he leaked the memo of his private conversation
with Trump to the media in order to precipitate the appointment of a special prosecutor. Think about
that for a minute. Here's what he said:
"My judgment was I needed to get that out into the public square. So I asked a friend of mine
to share the content of the memo with a reporter. I didn't do it myself for a variety of reasons,
but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel
, so I asked a close friend of mine to do it."
Listen to Comey. The man is openly admitting that leaking the memo was all part of a very clearly-defined
political strategy to force the appointment of a special prosecutor. That was the political objective
from the get go. He doesn't even try to hide it. He wasn't trying to protect himself from 'mean old'
Trump. That's baloney! He was laying the groundwork for a massive and expansive investigation into
anything and anyone even remotely connected to the Trump team, a gigantic fishing expedition aimed
at taking down Trump and his closest allies. That's what Comey's been up to. Only his plan didn't
work, did it, because the 'leaked memo' didn't lead to the appointment of the special prosecutor.
Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's all it
took.
In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenberg had to step in and give Comey his pink
slip before the media could cry "obstruction", creating the perfect opportunity to appoint "hired
gun" Robert Mueller as special counsel. Now that the dominoes are in motion, Comey can trundle off
to some comfy job at one of the many rightwing Washington think tanks while Mueller gathers together
his team of superstar prosecutors to launch their first broadsides on the White House.
Whoever wrote this script deserves an Oscar. This is really first-rate political theater.
Now it's up to Mueller to prove that Trump tried to obstruct the investigation by asking Comey
to go easy on former national security advisor General Michael Flynn. (According to Comey, Trump
said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy.
I hope you can let this go.") It might sound like obstruction, but there are real problems with this
type of prosecution particularly the fact that Trump denies the allegations. Also, Comey has acknowledged
that Trump expressed his support for the overall goals of the investigation when he said, "that if
there were some 'satellite' associates of his who did something wrong, it would be good to find that
out."
Clearly, Trump was not trying to impede the investigation. But even if he was, it is a particularly
murky area of the law and difficult to prove. Here's a short clip from an article by Professor Jonathan
Turley at George Washington University who helps to clarify the point:
"The desire for some indictable or impeachable offense by President Trump has distorted the
legal analysis to an alarming degree. Analysts seem far too thrilled by the possibility of a crime
by Trump. The legal fact is that Comey's testimony does not establish a prima facie - or even
a strong - case for obstruction.
It is certainly true that if Trump made these comments, his conduct is wildly inappropriate.
However, talking like Tony Soprano does not make you Tony Soprano .
The crime of obstruction of justice has not been defined as broadly as suggested by commentators The
mere fact that Trump asked to speak to Comey alone would not implicate the president in obstruction.
.
It would be a highly dangerous interpretation to allow obstruction charges at this stage. If
prosecutors can charge people at the investigation stage of cases, a wide array of comments or
conduct could be criminalized. It is quite common to have such issues arise early in criminal
cases. Courts have limited the crime precisely to avoid this type of open-ended crime where prosecutors
could threaten potential witnesses with charges unless they cooperated.
We do not indict or impeach people for being boorish or clueless or simply being Donald Trump."
("James Comey's testimony doesn't make the case for impeachment or obstruction against Donald
Trump", USA Today)
The fact that the obstruction charge won't stick is not going to stop Mueller from rummaging around
and making Trump's life a living Hell. Heck no. He's going to dig through his old phone records,
bank accounts, tax returns, shaky land deals, ex girl friends, whatever it takes. His prosecutorial
tentacles will extend into every nook and cranny of Trump's private life and affairs until he latches
onto some particularly sordid incident or transaction he can use he can use to disgrace, discredit,
and demonize Trump to the point that impeachment proceedings seem like a welcome relief. It should
be obvious by now, that the deep state elites who launched this coup are not going to be satisfied
until Trump is forced from office and the results of the 2016 presidential election are wiped out.
But, why? Why is Trump so hated by these people?
Trump is not being attacked because of his reactionary political agenda, but because he's been
deemed insufficiently hostile to Washington's sworn enemy, Russia. It's all about Russia. Trump wanted
to "normalize" relations with Moscow which pitted him against the powerful US foreign policy establishment.
Now Trump has to be taught a lesson. He must be crushed, humiliated and exiled. And that's probably
the way this will end.
Let me get this straight: Comey leaks a memo to the NY Times saying that Trump pressured him
to go easy on Flynn. He hoped that the leak would result in an "obstruction" charge against Trump.
But it doesn't work.
So, Rod Rosenstein–who has convenently replaced Sessions– talks Trump into firing Comey. Why?
Because Rosenstein is working for the other team and he needs Trump to do something stupid
that REALLY looks like obstruction, so he fires the head of the FBI. (Again, according to Salon,
firing Comey was Rosenstein's idea)
A week later, Rosenstein –without consulting Trump– appoints deep state handyman and political
assassin, Bob Mueller. So, in effect, Rosenstein appointed a special prosecutor to address the
appearence of obstruction that he created when he told Trump to fire Comey.
How's that for symetry!
Then on Tuesday, Rosenstein was asked what he would do if the president ordered him to fire
Mueller. Rosenstein said, "I'm not going to follow any orders unless I believe those are lawful
and appropriate orders." He added later: "As long as I'm in this position, he's not going to be
fired without good cause," which he said he would have to put in writing.
Oh man, this thing has "set up" written all over it. The whole thing stinks to high heaven
[ ] Comey's defenders were left sputtering that the fired FBI director had repeatedly affirmed
the 'fact' of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election, and that Comey had called Trump
a liar. The President's response was to hint again that he had recordings of his conversations
with Comey, to which the ex-director cockily declared 'Lordy I hope there are tapes'. This of
course, is a bluff by Comey and his derp state/Trump hating media backers, since Comey's entire
argument for obstruction of justice rests on his feelings/interpretations of a conversation alone
with the President, rather than any actual evidence of obstructing actions by Administration officials.
The only thing known for sure as of this posting is that the U.S. Secret Service says it does
not have recordings of the private Trump-Comey conversation. Meaning the President may have used
a personal recording device to protect himself from Comey's subsequent write up and self-serving
leaked recollections of their conversation. For more on the crookedness of Comey, read this summary
by Mike Whitney at Unz Review. [ ]
Excellent article. The politicized charge 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous, arcane and
insufferably highfalutin, which makes the entire investigation a very appealing opportunity to
launch a politically correct witch hunt. Watch the MSM cheer it on.
Meanwhile, the broad and well-earned suspicions surrounding the Clintons and their money-laundering
foundation will be moved aside and slowly forgotten, as planned.
Trump's enemies will use this open-ended 'investigation' to cloud and sully every action the
President makes. It is a legalistic act of war using the courts as cover. Disgraceful.
But the endgame is not exclusively about Russia. Ancillary targets include Russia's teetering allies, Syria and Iran. Cui Bono?
Seen from Europe the hearings by the USA Senate seem a comedy, if it was not serious. In my
view the effort is to prevent talks with Russia, in order to get a normal relation with that country.
At all costs Russia must remain the dangerous enemy of the USA. Why ?
I suppose on the on hand the desire for USA world domination, on the other hand the fear, that
existed in the USA since the 1917 Lenin coup, that Europe's trade relations with the east would
become more important than across the Atlantic.
Antony C. Sutton, ´Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution', 1974 New Rochelle, N.Y.
Good takes all, Mike, and they're the truth. But I'd fire Rosenburg for his
betrayals, then fire Mueller for his political selections, all Democrats, most with contributor
or employment connections to the Clintons, the Foundation, or the Global Initiative. Those would
be a firings for cause and I would fire all their allies, too. Immediately, I'd demand a Grand
Jury hearing and have appointed another Special Prosecutor. Nixon wasn't impeached over the Saturday
Night Massacre, he was impeached because they had the goods on him.
The endless investigations
can be terminated by the President on whim. The Congress can then impeach and hold a trial. They
would all look like fools because there's nothing there, only their desire to do Trump in. Trump
should fire, fire, fire wherever the politics lead in whatever agency. A lot of this is Clinton-driven,
too. Jeff Sessions also needs to get on board, carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to
a Grand Jury, flip it all back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies
down below that leaked. Anyone who leaks, lies or obstructs goes to jail.
This IS manageable, Jeff Sessions needs to man up here, or another AG needs to be in his place.
Thank you for a fine article. It may sound strange, but I do not believe this entire escapade is about Donald Trump or Russia.
It is about our Neocon overlords asserting their unconstitutional primacy over the sovereign
will of the American People.
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
Rather than be held to ACCOUNT for the gigantic mess they have made, the stupid wars they "lied
us into", and the trillions they have pilfered from the taxpayer in the process They put on this
" Comey (dog) and Mueller (pony) show to deflect from their stupendous failures and horrendous
criminality.
On day ONE of his Presidency, Donald Trump should have called in "the Marines", and started
seizing assets (up ,down, left and right) to recoup the losses our nation has endured.
The American people should be witnessing a Nuremberg like trial, today, where all our treasonous,
defrauding "elites" are admonished, shamed, and sentenced before the entire world.
@Mike Whitney Yes the role of Rosenstein and his background needs exploring. Firing Comey
was the right thing to do I think, he and they would have worked something anyway.
Frank Qattrone and Martha Stewart could tell you that you can do nothing wrong but they can
still put you in prison. Trump needs to be careful and get some good advice, I think so far he
hasn't taken this seriously enough. Seems clear Mueller has a conflict and that a special counsel
was appointed on false pretext.
Learned thus far; the deep state has more power than the Senate, the HOUSE and all members
of the voting public.. Its not about Trump, its about you voters.. you people out their in vote land did not vote
for the person the deep state elected.. therefore your elected persons must go.. somehow, he must
go.. and believe me the DEEPSTATE has pledged to make it so..
Why should Trump hire his own executioner?
Would you? Would you try to help the people who are trying to frame you for nothing?
Comey already admitted that there wasn't even an investigation.
Why wasn't there an investigation?
Because they have nothing on Trump. Nothing. That's why Comey "the waterboarder" agreed to frame
him on the obstruction charge. Because they have Nothing.
Mueller was not appointed via the congressional "special prosecutor" statute (which was allowed
to lapse.) He was appointed by the Justice Departement which means that Trump appointed the man
whose job is to destroy him. Why would Trump agree to that when he can simply fire Rosenstein
and instal someone who'll get rid of Mueller. Sure, the Washington Post will moan and groan, but who cares.
If Congress thinks there is enough evidence here to prosecute Trump, LET THEM APPOINT THEIR
OWN SPECIAL PROSECUTOR.
A little discouraged.
Don' t think the swamp is drainable.
Trump agenda will never be enacted under these circumstances.
Maybe Trump should fire Rosenstein and Mueller and then resign, loudly proclaiming truth about
swamp.
Don't like Pence but maybe few things can get done.
Trump underestimated deep state.
They ARE in charge.
What will the people do ?
Become more apathetic?
Alternatively, Trump could go out swinging.
Fire Rosenstein and Mueller and rally base and see what happens.
Can't go on as is.
The death by a thousand cuts.
In light of Mueller's early actions corroborating his status as an establishment thug and lackey,
Trump should fire him, and should fire Rosenstein, particularly since he has the power to do so,
and Comey's testimony admits that the leak was intended to get somebody, probably his longtime
associate Mueller, in as special prosecutor. As the article shows, the whole thing has been an
effort by the power structure to continue its nihilistic war policies. Trump's other proven faults
are not the issue. Our survival and the restoration of the rule of law are what is at stake.
I emigrated to Canada 10 years ago, fortunately being a dual citizen. One of the major reasons
I did so was the Martha Stewart case mentioned by a commenter above. I didn't think much of Martha
Stewart personally, but if she could be prosecuted despite the fifth amendment for a statement
made not under oath exclusively on the say-so of a government agent, then there was no longer
due process in the yankee imperium.
The fact the courts had allowed this "law" to go unchallenged
was proof that the rule of law no longer obtained. That was a key factor in my deliberations about
what to do. I also find it discouraging that counterpunch apparently did not see fit to publish
this Whitney article, probably because it is too much on point and they don't want to fully break
with the traditional left, which has destroyed itself by being taken over by fascists like the
Clintons and Tony Blair. The yankee imperium needs a figure like Corbyn to put things right again,
not a sell-out like Sanders.
Republicans in Congress surely don't like Trump.
However, they better start getting on board with him.
They are tied together, whether they like it or not.
what i find so weird, is the almost immediate flip-flop of so-called progressives/dem'rats
yelling full-throatedly for violence against -not just all things t-rumpian- ALL those who fail
ANY trivial PC litmus test they have their about-face on -essentially- renouncing nonviolence,
adopting Empire's motto of 'might makes right', and going full berserker against the rest of the
99% is too sudden and severe to be anything but an astroturf wannabe purple revolution with hillary's
puppet masters pulling the strings
IF they were actually calling for jihad against EMPIRE, instead of their fellow pathetic nekkid
apes, i could get behind that but their petulant excuses for why they should be given free reign
to 'punch a nazi' (ie ANYONE who disagrees with me), the disgusting shilling for hillary/dem'rats/Empire
is maddening
.
don't give a shit about t-rump; but they hound him out of office, i will consider that a direct
assault on my small-dee democracy, that a duly elected official is run off by hijacking the mechanisms
of state to pursue the agenda of the 1% is not right, though done numerous times
.
i think they might find that 100+ million PISSED-OFF, nothing-to-lose unemployed may consider
that the straw that broke the camel's back, and soros and his cabal of deep state slime won't
like the pushback when bubba gets out of the recliner
.
come the revolution idiot dem'rats appear to be itching for, just WHICH SIDE do stupid libtards
think the police, natl guard, military, etc are going to come down on ? ? ?
(hint: NOT the libtard side )
"Instead, someone had to whisper in Trump's ear that he should fire Comey and, ah ha, that's
all it took. In other words, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosen berg had to step
in"
The problem is that this leads back to the same questions of why Russia is Washington's sworn
enemy anyway. Furthermore, what is Trump's motivation in pushing for a detente with Russia, potentially
jeopardizing first his candidacy, and now his presidency, with a generally unpopular among the
electorate position?
I tend to agree with some of the comments above, that this has to do with the Neocons, their
hold on power and their plans for Middle Eastern conquest. Russia stands in the way of a lot of
their plans. Still, Trump's stance on Russia, and who or what else is behind that, to me is the
great mystery in all this. And, to be clear, I don't believe in any kind of ridiculous collusion
or blackmail scenario.
We here in Ft. Meade are having a good laugh. One of our assets, a shyster named Rosenstein
(that's Scottish, isn't it?) gives Trumpenstein a little pinprick in the back (not even a stab)
and the silly old jooie tool folds like a cheap lawn chair. No wall, no tax cuts, no ending the
jooie wars for the izzies, no mass deportations, no curbing the jooie central bank .just tacky
soap opera histrionics for the few interested in the doings in wash dc.
Trump needs to stage a false flag assasination attempt.
Blame it on operatives within the FBI and the upper echelons of congress.
Invite bikers for Trump and other patriots to washington, putting them on the payroll and arming
them while stating "Due to the assasination attempt I can no longer trust the secret service or
Washington establishment for protection."
He then needs to have this army occupy both Capitol hill, the CIA and the FBI.
etc etc.
Its time for Trump to flex his inner Yeltsin.
Uh, because he is a tool of the criminal elite who really run the show, which is one reason
he was rewarded with a directorship at HSBC in an earlier time. He made beaucoup bucks there
they made beaucoup bucks laundering hundreds of billions of drug cartel money. Apple tree.
@Mike Whitney Put Rosenstein under oath and ask him about any communications and agreements
and meetings he may have had with Comey or Mueller before he appointed a special prosecutor.
Do the same thing with Comey and Mueller in regard to Rosenstein. Trump's attorney should do these interrogations.
I feel that, despite the exhaustive process, this one has to be played- all 19 holes. Everyone
is going to demand a good stiff one at the nineteenth. Given his resume, Rosenstein was a good
choice by Trump. Sessions may regret his recusal but, Rosenstein may feel that his Frosted Flakes
breakfast will carry the day. One should not prejudice him. Trump may have snagged a few and ended
up in a sand trap but, he's still below par and we're only on the forth fairway. I did some digging
and found that Rod's from Philly. Just thought I would throw that in.
You can't judge a book by it's cover. The guy will be a good caddy.
@Mike Whitney Thank you, Mr. Whitney. This comment and comment #12 delineate the mechanics
of the set-up with laser-like precision.
We are in your debt for articulating the hinge points of this assault on the Constitutional
order. I don't care much for Trump, finding many of his specific domestic policies noxious; but
I do have a dog in the fight when the Deep State tries to overturn the election of the Chief Magistrate
of the nation because he might upset their applecart. He already fucked with their so-called "trade"
deals by deep sixing the TPP, and then he is talking about speaking respectfully with Russia,
implicitly rejecting the unipolarity of American Hegemony. What further proof did the Deep State
require to set a soft coup into motion?
Comey's having previously taken a job as general counsel of Bridgewater, including a reported
and unmerited $3+ million severance on leaving, was sufficient reason for Trump to fire him on
day one. Comey's due diligence had to have made him aware of–and therefore he apparently wanted
to be in on–Dalio's deranged, Stalinesque corporate culture of backstabbing absolutely everyone
under the guise of openness.
Dalio may be very rich, but he's an evil man who we may assume saw in Comey a kindred spirit.
Having a Ray Dalio protege leading the FBI suggests agents supported him, if that's actually the
case, out of fear and not allegiance.
Were Trump to take hysterical pieces like this post seriously it would likely precipitate him
into war with Russia. Fortunately that won't be necessary, because Trump can order the FBI to
do or stop doing things; the pres has that constitutional authority as Dershowitz has said repeatedly
from the begining, so there is no case against Trump for obstruction. Dershowitz has also said
anything (jaywalking) is in theory an "impeachable offense" , because impeachment is completely
political.
They want Trump to quit and are predicting impeachment in an attempt to get him to just go,
but even if Trump got fed up and wanted to quit, he couldn't now, because without the protection
of office, his fortune (at least) would be destroyed. As for the Russia innuendo, it is always
open to Trump to humiliate Russia with a military initiative (in Syria for example), which would
prove he has nothing to hide. As a major conflict with Russian proxies beckoned, the country would
look askance at scarce domestic intelligence resources being used for an old tax or sexual harassment
line of investigation against the sitting president. Knowing what kind of a man he is, who can
doubt that Trump wouldn't hesitate to kill Russians if that is what it took to turn the heat on
his opponents..
If the American people had their way, all our "Neocon overlords" would be in federal prison
or Guantanamo Bay, and all their assets seized to pay down the heinous 20 trillion debt their
lies have created.
@Mark Green "Ancillary targets" are American citizens. (Syria and Iran are much clearer direct
targets.)
Trump has done some great things. Recognition of Fake News and the Deep State threatened a
much bigger awakening. So Trump had to be diminished. Sure, he's a mixed bag, but his defeat of
Killary was a blessing. His direct communication (Twitter) and exposure of the MSM was brilliant.
As you say, 'obstruction of justice' is nebulous. Going on the defensive is a loser's game. There must be a counter-attack. What have we
got? Please, if you have something better, something simpler to put in meme and slogan, let's
have it, but I see Who Killed Seth Rich as a powerful offensive. You don't even have to solve
it. Just get the case broadcast. Do you know that only this week, Seth Rich's neighbor has come
out as a witness? (NOT a witness of the shooting, but of the immediate aftermath, police, etc.
Seth may have been totally beat down before he was shot.)
JULY 10 = ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF SETH RICH MURDER How about something big on July 10? The date shouldn't be wasted. Over 66,000 people have signed
the petition to make this point. There are only 3 days left, but it could still make the 100K
mark.
"..carry the frustrated Clinton investigations to a Grand Jury, flip it all
back on them and indict Comey, Rosenberg and all their little buddies down below that leaked "
YES, SO TRUE!! Big mistake to let Clinton off the hook. And what was her involvement in the
murder of Seth Rich? Investigate the DNC, Lynch, Comey, Clinton – all of them.
That's a good idea. Should be public. He needs to be fired any way. The person or persons who
recommended Rosenstein need to be fired also. Putting him under is an excellent idea. Trump needs
to hear it or read it. IMO, Rosenstein doesn't have a resumè that him suspect.
"... So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into " The Age of Darkness " and the " racially Orwellian " Trumpian Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard of the Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal. ..."
"... OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at "respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M. Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus (i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) ..."
"... They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain, the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of everything. ..."
"... whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia. ..."
"... Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward ( as they did in the recent French election , and as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and as The Guardian appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists," and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this? ..."
"... You remember last year as clearly as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK, sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country," and, as they say, the rest is history. ..."
"... In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France, Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian , NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. ..."
So, here we are, a little over one hundred days into "
The Age of Darkness " and the "
racially Orwellian "
Trumpian
Reich , and, all right, while it's certainly no party, it appears that those reports we heard
of the
Death of Neoliberalism were greatly exaggerated. Not only has the entire edifice of Western democracy
not been toppled, but the global capitalist ruling classes seem to be going about their business
in more or less the usual manner. The Goldman Sachs vampires are back in the White House (as they
have been for over one hundred years). The post-Cold War destabilization and restructuring of the
Middle East is moving forward right on schedule. The Russians, Iranians, North Koreans, and other
non-globalist-ball-playing parties remain surrounded by the most ruthlessly murderous military machine
in the annals of history. Greece is being debt-enslaved and looted. And so on. Life is back to normal.
Or OK, not completely normal. Because, despite the fact that editorialists at
"respectable" papers like The New York Times (and I'm explicitly referring to Charles M.
Blow and Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman) have recently dropped the completely
ridiculous "Trump is a Putinist agent" propaganda they'd been relentlessly spewing since he won
the election, a significant number of deluded persons, having swallowed their official vomitus
(i.e., the vomitus of Blow and Krugman, and other neoliberal establishment hacks) like the
hungry Adélie penguin chicks in those nature shows narrated by David Attenborough.
They are convinced (these deluded persons are) that the Russians are waging a global
campaign not only to maliciously hack, or interfere with, or marginally influence, free and fair
elections throughout the Western world, but to control the minds of Westerners themselves, in
some Orwellian, or possibly Wachowskian fashion. Worse yet, these deluded persons are certain,
the Russians are now secretly running the White House, and are just using Trump, and the Goldman
Sachs gang, and capitalist centurions like General McMaster, as a front for their subversive
activities, like denying Americans universal healthcare and privatizing the hell out of
everything.
If you think I'm being hyperbolic, check out
#MarchforTruth
on Twitter, or
its anonymous Crowdpac fundraising page , which at first glance I took for an elaborate prank,
but which seems to be in deadly earnest about "restoring faith in American government," uncovering
Trump's "collusion" with Russia, and reversing his "subversion of the will of the people." The plan
is, on June 3, 2017, thousands of otherwise rational Americans are going to pour into the streets
"demanding answers" from well, I'm not sure whom, some independent prosecutor, or congressional
committee, or intelligence agency, or whomever is responsible for ferreting out the Putin-Nazi infiltrators
that "respected" pundits like Blow and Krugman (and stark raving loonies like Louise Mensch) have
convinced them are now controlling the government. Weirdly, these same "respected" journalists, the
ones who have been assuring the world that The President of the United States is a covert agent working
for Russia, have failed to even mention this March for Truth, and are acting like they had nothing
to do with whipping these folks up into a frenzy of apoplectic paranoia.
Incidentally, one of my colleagues contacted Mr. Blow directly and inquired as to whether he'd
be vociferously supporting or possibly leading the March for Truth, and was chastised by Blow and
his Twitter followers. I found this reaction extremely troubling, and asked my colleague to contact
Mensch and suggest she check with her handlers at The Times to make sure the Russians haven't
gotten to him. However, just as he was sitting down to do that, the "Comey-firing" brouhaha broke,
which
seems to have brought Blow back to the fold , albeit in a less hysterical manner than his Rooskie-hunting
readers have grown accustomed to. We can only hope that both he and Krugman return to form in the
weeks to come as Russiagate builds to its dramatic climax.
Oh, yeah, and if Russiagate isn't paranoid enough, apparently, the corporate media is now prepared
to deploy the "Putin-Nazi Election Hackers" propaganda in any and every election going forward (
as they did in the recent French election , and
as they tried to do in the Dutch elections , and presumably will in the German elections, and
as
The Guardian
appears to be retroactively doing in regard to the Brexit referendum ). Any day now, we should
be hearing of the "Putin-Nazi-Corbyn Axis," and the "Putin-Nazi-Podemos Pact," and video footage
of Martin Schultz and a bevy of former-East German hookers engaging in Odinist sex magick rituals
in an FSB-owned bordello in Moscow. Soon, it won't just be elections no, we'll be hearing reports
of Russian shipments of rocks, bottles, and pointy sticks to the "Putin-Nazi Palestinian Terrorists,"
and well, who knows how far they're willing to take this?
All joking aside,
as I've
written about previously , what we're dealing with here is more than just a lame attempt by the
Democratic Party to blame its humiliating loss on Putin (although of course it certainly is that
in part). The global neoliberal establishment is rolling out a new official narrative. It's actually
just a slight variation on the one it's been selling us since 2001. I could come up with a sixteen-syllable,
academic-sounding name for this narrative, but I'm trying to keep things simple these days so let's
call it The Normals versus The Extremists , (the Normals being the neoliberals and the Extremists
being everyone else). The goal of this narrative is to stigmatize and otherwise marginalize opposition
to Neoliberalism, regardless of the nature of that opposition (i.e., whether it comes from the left,
right, or from religious, environmentalist, or any other quarters). Now, as any professional storyteller
will tell you, one of the most important aspects of the narrative you're trying to suck people into
is to make your protagonist a likeable underdog, and then pit him or her against a much more powerful
and ideally incorrigibly evil enemy. During the Cold War, this was easy to do - the story was Democracy versus the Commies
, traditional "good versus evil"-type stuff.
Once the U.S.S.R.
collapsed, the concept needed major rewrites, as a new evil adversary had to be found. This (i.e.,
the 1990s) was a rather awkward and frustrating period. The global capitalist ruling classes, giddy
with joy after having become the first ever global ideological hegemon in the history of aspiring
global hegemons, got all avant-garde for a while, and thought they could do without an "enemy." This
approach, as you'll recall, did not sell well.
No one quite got why we were bombing Yugoslavia, and
Bush and Baker had to break out the Hitler schtick to gin up support for rescuing the Kuwaitis from
their old friend Saddam. Fortunately, in September 2001, the show runners got the break they were
looking for, and the official narrative was instantly switched to Democracy versus The Islamic
Terrorists . This re-brand got extremely good ratings, and would have been extended indefinitely
if not for what began to unfold in the latter half of 2016. (One could go back and locate the week
when the mainstream media officially switched from the "
Summer of Terror " narrative they were flogging to the new "Invasion of the Putin-Nazis" narrative
my guess is, it was early to mid-September.) It started with the Brexit referendum, continued with
the rise of Trump, and well, I don't have to recount it, do I? You remember last year as clearly
as I do, how, suddenly, out of seemingly nowhere, the Putin-Nazi menace materialized, and took the
place of the "self-radicalized terrorist" as the primary target for people's hatred and fear. OK,
sure, at first, there were no Putin-Nazis. It was just that the Brexit folks were fascists, and Trump
was Hitler, and Bernie Sanders was some sort of racist hacky sack Communist. But then
the Putinists poisoned Clinton , and unleashed their
legions of Russian propagandists on the gullible, Oxycodone-addicted denizens of "flyover country,"
and, as they say, the rest is history.
In any event, here we are now stuck inside this simulation of "reality" where Putin-Nazi hackers
are coming out of the woodwork, a partyless neoliberal banker has been elected the President of France,
Donald Trump is an evil mastermind or a Russian operative, depending on what day it is (as opposed
to just a completely incompetent, narcissistic billionaire idiot), and neoliberal propaganda outfits
like The New York Times , The Washington Post , MSNBC, CNN, The Guardian
, NPR, et al., are perceived as "respectable" sources of journalism, as if their role in generating
and occasionally revising the official narrative weren't so insultingly obvious. Personally, I am
looking forward to the upcoming German elections this Autumn, wherein Neoliberal Party "A" is challenging
Neoliberal Party "B" for the right to continue privatizing Greece (and any other formerly sovereign
nations the banks can get their hands on) in a demonstration of European unity, and fiscal austerity
and, you know, whatever.
If this is the Death of Neoliberalism, just imagine what awaits us at the Resurrection.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin.
His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut
novel,
ZONE
23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at
cjhopkins.com or
consentfactory.org .
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
Note that the candidate swears to be "faithful" to the "interests, welfare and success of
the Democratic Party," but not to its principles. That's because there aren't any.